Hansard -- Wednesday, October 20, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 26, No. 12 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		11591

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		11591
	Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 76)
	Hon. G. Collins
	Election Act Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill M207)
	J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		11592
	Artists for kids
	K. Whittred
	Prevention of gang violence
	P. Sahota
	French immersion
	R. Stewart

Oral Questions		11593
	Expansion of gambling
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Campbell
	J. Kwan
	Hon. I. Chong
	Community access to forest resources
	B. Belsey
	Hon. R. Harris
	Ditch maintenance by Langley farmers
	L. Stephens
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Expansion of gambling
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. L. Reid
	Student performance in Surrey
	D. Hayer
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Environmental assessments
	B. Penner
	Hon. G. Abbott

Petitions		11596
	R. Masi
	D. MacKay
	J. Kwan

Tabling Documents		11597
	British Columbia Transmission Corporation, major capital project plan
	Advertisements run during Parksville-Qualicum by-election, Surrey–White Rock election and 1997 federal election

Second Reading of Bills		11597
	Northern Development Initiative Trust Act (Bill 59) (continued)
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	J. Wilson
	Hon. R. Harris
	J. Kwan
	Hon. K. Falcon
	B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act (Bill 58) (continued)
	P. Nettleton
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Harris
	Hon. K. Falcon

Committee of the Whole House		11608
	Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 65) (continued)
	W. Cobb
	Hon. R. Harris

Report and Third Reading of Bills		11609
	Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 65)

Committee of the Whole House		11609
	Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 75)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. K. Falcon

Report and Third Reading of Bills		11616
	Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 75)

Second Reading of Bills		11616
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2004 (Bill 74)
	Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House		11618
	Charitable Purposes Preservation Act (Bill 63)
	Hon. G. Plant

Reporting of Bills		11619
	Charitable Purposes Preservation Act (Bill 63)

Third Reading of Bills		11619
	Charitable Purposes Preservation Act (Bill 63)

Committee of the Whole House		11619
	Trespass Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 72) (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Plant

Deputy Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 30 public servants seated in the public gallery who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop. This workshop, offered by the Legislative Assembly, provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects the Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Today in the members' gallery I want to acknowledge a very special visitor to the House, Mr. Paul DuBois, ambassador of Canada to Germany. I'm very pleased the ambassador has travelled to British Columbia to discover and enjoy the many opportunities our beautiful province presents to visitors. British Columbia has traditionally been a great destination location, especially with visitors from Germany, and we congratulate the ambassador for his efforts in promoting our scenic and "super, natural" province. Would all members please join me in making him feel very welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I have two constituents in the gallery today: Mr. Kal Rangi and his wife, and they're joined by their son. They have two visitors from the Indian army — D.S. Grewal and Mrs. Harjit Grewal. I would ask the House to please make them very, very welcome.

J. Kwan: I have the pleasure to introduce Lenlen Castro, a member of local 76 students union of Vancouver Community College, who has travelled to Victoria today to present the government with petitions calling on the government for the reduction of tuition fees to 2001 levels and to restore public funding in advanced education. Would the House please make her welcome.

R. Stewart: Some colleagues and I had the opportunity and the pleasure to be able to meet with representatives of the Canadian Parents for French this morning, who came in to discuss the tremendous success of B.C.'s French immersion program and how we can work together to address some of the demand. Joining us in the members' gallery today are CPF directors Laurin Shadforth; from Dawson Creek, on behalf on my colleague who is behind me, Heather Newman; and the president of Canadian Parents for French, Melanie Tighe-Lovsin. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Masi: I would like to take this opportunity to recognize all the members of a student delegation I met with this morning regarding post-secondary tuition. I would ask the House to please make them all very, very welcome.

M. Hunter: Part of that delegation includes two of my constituents, Rick Powelson and Pat Barbosa. I hope the House will make them welcome on my behalf too.

Hon. S. Brice: Another member of that delegation is a constituent of mine. Her name is Joanna Groves. I would ask the House to make her welcome.

R. Nijjar: The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., otherwise known as APEGBC, maintains high academic practice and professional standards expected of B.C.'s over 20,000 professional engineers and professional geoscientists. I am going to be a little politically incorrect and say there's one of those 20,000 that is dearest and most loved in our hearts. I'm very proud to say that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, an engineer, a PhD, is going to receive the community service award by APEGBC.

I hope everybody can attend and give their well wishes, because of the 11 members that are going to receive the exemplary professional contribution award at the 2004 annual conference in Whistler, October 21 to 23. I'm sure some of us will not have the chance to be there, but he is loved by all of us on both sides, I'm sure. I'd like to have everyone congratulate him. [Applause.]

L. Mayencourt: I have the pleasure of introducing three individuals that are with us today, but I'd also like to introduce two that are not, and for this reason. For many years I've been a member of the Public Accounts Committee. That Public Accounts Committee has been served very, very well by the office of the auditor general and in particular by three individuals that are facing retirement.

They include Mr. Peter Gregory, who is not here today. Peter has been very, very involved in creating kind of a revolutionary type of performance reporting for British Columbia that is putting us at the forefront of this kind of reporting in all of Canada. He is not joining us today. We also have Endre Dolhai, who is away doing some work out of the province. He will also be retiring.

In the gallery today we have Keyvan Ahmadi and his wife Elizabeth Ahmadi, who will be enjoying their retirement. We also have Mr. Wayne Strelioff, who is the auditor general. Would the House please salute these three exemplary members of the public service. [Applause.]

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm pleased to announce that Bill 76 reduces the PST from 7.5 percent back down to 7 percent. As I said at the time of the 2002 budget, raising taxes was the last thing the government ever wanted or intended to do, but when faced with nearly $800 million in additional compensation costs in 2002 to pay for doctors and nurses — but particularly an arbitration with doctors — government took the very difficult decision to raise the provincial sales tax from 7 percent to 7.5 percent.

Today I want to thank British Columbians for helping us, over the last three years, to pay for those doctors, manage the health care system, get our costs under control, turn this fiscal house around and get our economy back on track. The thanks for the change today really go to the people of British Columbia, who've worked hard over the last three years to see this result.

I also said at the time this tax was raised that when the many structural changes we were making began to pay dividends and our budget moved into a surplus, reducing the sales tax would be one of British Columbia's top priorities. We're now projecting a substantial surplus in 2004-05 and into the future and, indeed, every year thereafter. I've very pleased to be able to table Bill 76 today, which reduces the PST that half a percentage point. The transitional rules are available on the ministry's provincial website immediately.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 76 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 76 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. MacPhail: I move that a bill entitled Election Act Amendment Act, 2004, be introduced and read a first time now.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Election Act to make it illegal for the government to use taxpayer funds on partisan political advertising during a general election or a by-election. As all British Columbians have been made very aware, the government is currently spending millions of dollars on partisan advertising featuring actors dictating blatant partisan spin. Despite the government's commitment and promise to not run such advertising during elections, British Columbians are being inundated with partisan messaging and print ads hourly while a by-election is running in the riding of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. It costs roughly a minimum of $35,000 every time one of these advertisements runs on prime-time TV. That money is being taken away from health and education.

In order to curb this reckless and partisan use of taxpayer dollars, this bill will make government advertising an offence during the campaign period of general elections and by-elections. Under this act, if an offence is committed, the Premier of a government that commits the offence can be fined up to $5,000. This bill will also facilitate the creation of a non-partisan committee to create the standards that will govern government advertising. This bill represents an opportunity to ensure that all elections are free from interference of partisan advertising paid for by the taxpayers. British Columbians deserve to see their tax dollars put into positive programs, not partisan ads.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M207 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

K. Whittred: Nearly everyone on the North Shore has enjoyed, at one time or another, a visit to the Artists for Kids Gallery. It is one of the many successes of the North Vancouver school district, a leader among school districts in providing unique and enriching learning experiences to students in North Vancouver and, indeed, around the province.

The gallery is but one part of the Artists for Kids Trust. This trust was established in 1989 through a generous partnership among some of Canada's finest artists — Bill Reid, Jack Shadbolt, Gordon Smith — and the North Vancouver school district. In fact, one of the very first pieces of art donated to the gallery is the Bill Reid drum design that the Canadian Mint has recently incorporated into the new $20 bill.

The mission of Artists for Kids is to provide an art education legacy for the students of British Columbia. The trust administers the gallery as well as the Paradise Valley Summer School of Visual Art in Brackendale, where in addition to the usual range of summer camp activities, students experience and learn from some of Canada's finest visual artists and teachers. A host of quality art programs for students are offered year-round, everything from painting to potting to design, for children from kindergarten through high school.

Funds are raised for all of its accomplishments by the sale of original prints by its many artist patrons. Recently this initiative played a significant factor in why the North Van school district was awarded the third minister's award for school board excellence, which includes a $10,000 prize.

I think the most important part of the program is the part that's called Artists in the Spotlight. Up-and-coming artists are nominated by their teachers to showcase their talents. I would like to congratulate Sarah Mitchell, who is eight, from Lonsdale School, and Nick Harborne, who is 16, from Sutherland, whose achievements are currently in the Artists for Kids spotlight.

If any of you are in North Vancouver, I encourage you to visit the Artists for Kids Gallery, located in the Leo Marshall Curriculum Centre. It's filled with an ever-exchanging collection of magnificent works by our leading artists, so come to the gallery and see art from Canada's foremost contemporary artists and support quality art education for the children of British Columbia.

P. Sahota: Over the past three years many of us have stood in this House to talk about the ongoing gang violence in the South Asian community. We know that more than 75 young people have lost their lives over the past decade. In response to this escalating violence, law enforcement agencies, community leaders, this government and community organizations have been working together diligently to find solutions to a problem that has many facets.

One such community organization is VIRSA Sikh Alliance Against Youth Violence, which is doing tremendous work. They have been actively working with the youth, the parents and the community to prevent other young people from entering a life of violence and drugs. The chair of the organization is well-known Burnaby resident Harbans Kandola, who, along with the board of directors, has shown exceptional leadership on this issue.

Those involved with VIRSA recognize that law enforcement is just one piece of the puzzle. Thus, the goal of VIRSA is to educate our youth, to provide mentors and to empower the parents so that future violence can be avoided. VIRSA has forged ahead with unique prevention and intervention programs for families of Indian descent. More than 200 parents are enrolled in the intervention program designed to help parents build better relationships with their children and to spot the warning signs that their children are headed down the wrong path. Three mentorship programs, like the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program, are underway to motivate and provide positive role models.

To further raise awareness and discussion of this complex issue, VIRSA is holding a fundraising dinner this Friday, October 22, at the Riverside Palace in Richmond. I, along with a number of my colleagues, will be attending to lend our support. I also know that the presence of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Education is much anticipated and appreciated by the community.

I want to thank and congratulate VIRSA and the many volunteers for the work they have undertaken and for working together in a collaborative and cooperative manner.

R. Stewart: Last week at the ministerial conference on francophone affairs in Moncton, I once again heard praise from my colleagues across Canada about B.C.'s success in French immersion. As we saw in front-page newspaper stories this morning, education in B.C. in French language has had tremendous success, and much of that success is due to the advocacy of parents and organizations like Canadian Parents for French. This organization now boasts more than 6,500 members, myself included. According to the organization, this is an increase of more than 67 percent in the past three years, giving them twice as many members as any other province in Canada.

French immersion enrolment has increased almost 20 percent in the past four years in spite of declining student populations in general. As well, some 13 communities have added French immersion programs in the last four years as a direct result of parent advocacy. Now 44 of B.C.'s 60 school districts offer French immersion. As CPF points out, this success goes beyond French immersion. Surrey, for example, recently added B.C.'s first intensive core French program. Conseil scolaire, the francophone school district, saw a remarkable 12 percent increase in enrolment this year alone.

The B.C. government has just built some new francophone schools, and there are more under construction. SFU has launched its bilingual degree program. Éducacentre has been transformed into the province's first French-language community college, and Okanagan University College, for the first time, is offering teacher training and certification in French as well as English.

If you have concerns about the challenges students face in learning a second language, you should consider that a Stats Canada report revealed that B.C.'s French immersion students lead the country in reading performance in English. Other studies show that the very act of learning a second language, of being bilingual, helps improve brain development and may cause lifelong cognitive advantages. I'm sure that my colleagues can think of examples right here in the House to show this is probably true.

I want to applaud the teachers, the school districts, the Canadian Parents for French and all those parents who take on the challenge of enrolling their children in French immersion programs.

J. MacPhail: When in opposition, this is what the now government Whip had to say about expanded gambling: "Women in British Columbia will die as a result of gambling expansion, so children may die as a result of gambling expansion, and their blood will be

on the heads of the government that expanded gambling and the MLAs who voted for it." That is a direct quote from Hansard.

Does the Premier agree with his Whip that children will die as a result of this government's expansion of gambling?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think there should be no question at all in this House about who carried out the increase in the massive expansion of gambling. It was the NDP, the previous government, that did that.

The second thing I think we have to know is that we have to make sure that we contain it, that we control it and that we manage it properly and appropriately for everyone concerned. That's why this government, unlike the last government, has doubled the amount of dollars that are going towards problem gambling. We want to make sure that it is controlled, and we want to make sure that society is not in fact harmed by this activity.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the Premier should stick around and hear what his ministers are saying in this chamber. The Solicitor General has already admitted that the government broke its promise and expanded gambling. Let me quote from him last March to me in this chamber: "I'm not going to say that none of this is expanded gaming, because some of it is." We have the Solicitor General admitting that the government has expanded gambling and the government Whip saying that expanded gambling leaves blood on the government's head.

My question to the Premier: will he advise the House what studies his government has commissioned that will allow him to be confident that expanded gaming won't lead to the tragic results for children his colleague predicts?

Hon. G. Campbell: As we announced in an open cabinet meeting, we had legal obligations to be met. We have met those legal obligations. I also think it's important to note….

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is important to note that there were legal obligations that had to be met. We discussed that very soon after we were elected as government.

As a result of the initiatives we have taken, there is now a 24-hour help line available for people. There are 31 professionals who are available across the province. There are provincial counsellors that are providing provincewide counselling services. All of those things are to try and make sure we have an organized, thoughtful gaming industry in British Columbia. We are meeting those obligations through the lottery corporations. We have removed the political interference from it, and that is in the public interest.

J. MacPhail: The government Whip says that people will die because of expanded gambling, the Solicitor General admits that this government has expanded gambling, and this Premier hides behind the fact that he says contracts are inviable. Does he know his own record on breaking contracts? There is absolutely no evidence that there were any legal obligations, and he knows it. He knows it. It is very disturbing that this Premier doesn't have a handle on this.

J. MacPhail: Study after study has shown that gaming is a threat to kids, particularly Internet gaming. The Responsible Gaming Council of Ontario says that Internet gaming is a particular danger for kids because they are often the most adept at using the Internet. Three months ago a British study concluded that age verification systems designed to stop minors from gambling on the Internet aren't reliable.

The government admitted that gambling laws are unable to keep pace with changes in technology. That's what the Solicitor General said. Again, my question is to the Premier: when will he start advocating for children and demand that his government keep its promise and call a halt to the expansion of gaming?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me underline and emphasize that the expansion of gambling in British Columbia took place under the previous government. I am actually very sorry that the member from the opposition did not have that information available to her at the time they entered into these agreements and the expansion of gambling. What we have done is we have made sure that gambling was managed in a sensible way. We have removed the political interference from gaming, and we are providing support services to those who may have difficulties with gaming in their personal lives.

J. Kwan: This Premier, when he was in opposition, campaigned on no gaming expansion. After he took office, he expanded gaming. In opposition the Liberal MLAs cited a report that shows that children of gamblers do worse in school than their peers and attempt suicide twice as often as their classmates. They pointed to studies that show pathological gamblers abuse their spouse and children.

Let me ask the Minister of State for Women's Services: does she accept the findings of the studies refer-

enced by her own colleagues that gambling expansion hurts women, and what is she doing to stop it?

Hon. I. Chong: The hypocrisy coming from the members opposite is outrageous. When I was in opposition, I did not see those members standing up to the expansion of gambling that they introduced.

Our government is committed to ensuring that we have a responsible gambling industry, and we have done that. We have removed the political interference. If those two members would stop fearmongering in this House, it would serve the public much better.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplemental.

J. Kwan: At least the Solicitor General has enough integrity to admit that they have expanded gaming. This government campaigned on no gaming expansion and then proceeded to expand gaming. The Minister of State for Women's Services' hypocrisy, she calls, is just about to be tested.

In opposition the member for Langley and former Minister of State for Women's Equality introduced a motion of non-confidence during the Women's Equality minister's estimates debates because she couldn't stop a minor expansion of gambling. This government has doubled gambling in the province of British Columbia and is now taking it to the Internet. The current Minister of State for Women's Services voted in favour of that motion of non-confidence. So did the Premier. In fact, the Minister of Finance spoke to the motion.

My question to the Minister of State for Women's Services, again: does she agree that this House should have no confidence in her because she has done nothing to stop this massive expansion of gaming?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, the members opposite continue to create fear amongst the public. They have no understanding of the gaming industry.

Hon. I. Chong: …and programs designed to ensure that responsible gaming occurs in this province. Let me just name a few of them. We have self-exclusion programs. We have information on problem gambling being posted in gaming venues. We have referral services and training for all gaming workers to identify and assist problem gamblers. Problem gambling awareness campaigns have been recently run in the media. A responsible gaming website has been developed and is now operating.

B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of State for Forestry Operations. My riding, from the Queen Charlotte Islands–Haida Gwaii to halfway to Terrace, from Stewart down to Bella Coola, is covered with a blanket of trees — old growth, some new growth and some prime for harvesting. Carved out of that blanket of trees are a number of small communities that for decades tried to get access to those trees, to secure some tender.

My question to the Minister for Forestry Operations is: will he tell my constituents what he is doing to help those communities reach their goal of access to the forest?

Hon. R. Harris: The member and I have talked quite often about small community-based tenures in his riding. He has been a tremendous advocate. When we were elected, one of the things we said we were going to do right away was revitalize the forest industry in this province. It's pretty difficult today to pick up a newspaper anywhere and not read about the good news that's happening in this forest industry right across the province.

One key component of that revitalization plan is, in fact, the creation of a significant number of new, small community-based tenure opportunities in this province. To date we've signed over 70 forest and range agreements with first nations. We've recently extended community forest licences to communities like Fort St. James and Burns Lake, and just recently extended invitations to a number of communities for new community forest opportunities — Ucluelet, Sechelt and Port Alberni, just to name a few.

We are expanding the woodlot program in this province. We're doubling the size of the B.C. timber sales program in this province. What we're doing in this province today is providing access, not just to communities but to community-based businesses, to the fibre that surrounds them in a way that's going to work for them and that is going to build these communities in a strong and sustainable manner. I'm proud to be part of a government doing that.

L. Stephens: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Farmers in Langley and the Fraser Valley are having a very frustrating time dealing with the regulations from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. According to our farmers, the DFO is making the clearing of ditches very, very difficult. If farmers do not clear these plugged ditches, very often their fields will flood when it rains.

My question to the minister is: what is being done to assist our farmers in dealing with their discussions with the DFO?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am familiar with the conflicts in Langley between farmers and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The conflicts revolve around land clearing, drainage and ditch maintenance. I have

spoken to the federal minister, Geoff Regan, on this issue. He has committed to working with us on these issues. We are working, through our ministry staff and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff and through the agriculture environment partnership committee, to develop guidelines for farmers to use to develop codes of practice that they can follow which will be compatible with the federal Fisheries Act.

I believe that taking a thoughtful science-based approach, combined with respect for legitimate farming activities, will help us resolve this issue. Our ministry is committed to working on that to help these farmers resolve these conflicts.

J. MacPhail: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson said about expanded gambling: "Women in British Columbia will die as a result of gambling expansion. So children may die as a result of gambling expansion, and their blood will be on the heads of the government that expanded gambling and the MLAs who voted for it."

To the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development: was the member for Kamloops–North Thompson telling the truth then?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm delighted to rise and respond on behalf of this government's record in terms of how we've handled children's issues in the province of British Columbia.

In one example alone, in terms of the children who receive services and who have autism today, we are the leaders in the country in terms of individualized support for families. This government is only interested in doing things that are a kindness to families, and we will stand on that.

D. Hayer: My question is to the Minister of Education. Excellence in education continues to be a source of pride for Surrey communities. Recently the NDP have tried to claim that the education system in Surrey is eroding and much worse than it was four years ago.

To the Minister of Education: I would like to know how students in my communities are performing today compared to three years ago.

The Surrey school board actually has a great story to tell. They've shown incredible leadership in focusing on student achievement and on improving student achievement in the Surrey school district. Over the last few years…. Last year, in fact, we saw a record 80 percent of students in the Surrey school district complete high school. That overall completion rate has increased steadily over the last four years — in fact, from 76 percent back before the turn of the century to 80 percent more recently. They are achieving on all levels, and they will continue to achieve due to the effective leadership they've shown there in focusing on student achievement.

B. Penner: In August the NDP-funded Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the David Suzuki Foundation released a document claiming that the provincial government had watered down or weakened the environmental assessment process in B.C. I'm aware of some changes that were made to streamline renewable energy projects, but I'm wondering if the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management can comment about how the changes affect environmental protection in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: To the member: there was a new Environmental Assessment Act brought into place in December of 2002. The object of that was to produce more timely decisions on environmental assessment projects. In most cases now, the projects are through the assessment process in 180 days. As well, we have put in place concurrent permitting, which would ensure that the proponents typically only have to wait about 60 days to have their related permits in place by the end of the process.

Importantly, the process continues to involve the public in a major way — a lot of public input, a lot of consultation with first nations. Most importantly, there is a very thorough, very fair, very objective and professional analysis of these issues by the EAO.

Happily, the product of all this is more economic development in the province. We have seen the number of projects in the EAO process double in the last year. Also very importantly, we expect at least ten new mining projects to be a part of the EAO process next year.

R. Masi: I have here a sample of a number of petitions from approximately 25,000 students from colleges and universities from right across the province, all relating to tuition fees. The remainder will be delivered on behalf of my colleagues here to the Clerk's office.

D. MacKay: I have a petition to file on behalf of about 850 residents throughout the northwest who are opposed to a proposed road being built.

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition also. I have a petition opposed to the Safe Streets Act legislation from members of the community, with 291 names on the petition.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I see in the gallery our poultry specialist with the Ministry of Agriculture, Mr. Stewart Paulson. I'd like the House to please make him welcome and acknowledge the good work that he and the other ministry staff did in dealing with the AI crisis in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I have the honour to present a major capital project plan prepared by the British Columbia Transmission Corporation for the proposed system control modernization project in accordance with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

Hon. G. Collins: I have before me 41 advertisements that might provide some context to the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill today, including those that ran during the Parksville-Qualicum by-election and the Surrey–White Rock election. But my favourite has the smiling face of the member opposite on it, which ran using provincial government money during the 1997 federal election.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, please come to order.

Hon. G. Collins: If I had known it was going to hurt that much, I would have provided anaesthetic as well.

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in support of the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act. I have just come back from visiting with 41 mayors and regional district chairs from across the north. The best way to describe their attitude is that they are not just grateful that this has happened; I think in some ways they're surprised. We are doing something with this piece of legislation which is in response to what northerners have been asking provincial governments for decades and more.

We should recognize that when we provide $135 million for northern people to come up with northern solutions to northern opportunities, we have liberated the north to pursue their goals and objectives in a way that is unprecedented in British Columbia. I was fortunate on Saturday to be in Prince George, where we were part of the opening-up of the Chicago Express. Speaker after speaker commented about how that would allow us to shrink the supply line, how it would allow us to get our products to customers earlier. That is just a start of the B.C. Rail investment partnership's benefits to the people of the north.

I want to talk about the northern development initiative particularly, because it does do something that is unique. It is a model that we will able to watch — how it grows and how it develops — as we move forward. The northern development initiative does something that has not happened before. It provides substantial resources to communities and regions in the north to pursue their goals and their objectives in the way that they see fit.

As we met with the advisory committees in the north, I can tell you that mayor after mayor and regional district chair after regional district chair were very excited by the opportunities that this opens up for them. It opens up opportunities, certainly, in transportation, in tourism development, in energy development, in forestry development, in dealing with the pine beetle, in small business development and in economic development. We are talking about a whole new era of development in the northern part of British Columbia. That's what we committed to, and that's what this bill delivers on.

Mr. Speaker, as you see the other benefits that have accrued as a result of the B.C. Rail investment partnership…. We see not just a write-down of $500 million in debt that is coming but also a savings of $30 million a year. We see maintenance in the infrastructure improving and increasing. That's going to be important.

When you look at what's taken place just in the changes that have taken place in the last few months and you see how much closer shippers are to their customers, you also discover that there's been $2.6 million invested in Prince George alone. There will be a new wheelhouse opened early next year. There is going to be an expansion to the airport as Prince George becomes a northern hub for transportation and goods movement. That's important to all of us.

Equally important, yesterday I was in Terrace, and I was talking to mayors and regional district representatives of the northwest part of our province — a part of our province which has too often not been paid attention to by governments in the past. I am pleased to say that when you talk with the MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, the MLA for Skeena and the MLA for North

Coast, they have captured the imagination of our northwest communities. The northern development initiative will give them a brand-new opportunity to open up the opportunities and the jobs for people in the northwest.

You know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes we forget that the previous government sometimes didn't even recognize where the northwest was and the opportunities that it presented to us. I have in my hand a government investment climate brochure from 1996. You open it up, and there are some grand comments about the capacity of British Columbia's ports. The only port that is mentioned is Vancouver.

I think it is important to note that the port of Prince Rupert has already attracted attention from people in the central part of the United States. It has already attracted attention from our prairie farmers and our Peace River farmers. It is already slated to become a major container facility for the long term in British Columbia, because it gets our products 30 hours closer to the markets in Asia — particularly the markets in China and Japan — and the markets in India. That is a huge plus for the north and for British Columbia.

When you look at the $135 million established under the northern development initiative in this bill, we recognize that a number of things are taking place. The first one is that we are recognizing that the north should come up with their own solutions to their own problems. I think that is something that's been very important to community leaders across the north. But the second is this. This is a new model. It's a model that asks individual community leaders to come together and find common ground and common purpose as they pursue their investment strategies.

I'll tell members of the House that one of the things that every regional advisory committee mentioned as we sat and discussed the potential for the northern development initiative…. They all said this: "We are not going to invest these dollars in bureaucracy. We are not going to invest these dollars in more and more studies. We're going to invest these dollars in improving the quality of life of the people that we serve in our ridings and across the north." That's exactly why I support the northern development initiative.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at how these dollars are allocated, $25 million is an ongoing trust that will provide the opportunity for northern communities to come together and find common purpose. The $15 million we are allocating to each of the regions in the north is equally important to the northeast, the northwest, the Cariboo-Chilcotin, Lillooet and Prince George. Again, that allows them to complement, to lever up additional opportunities — whether it's through the private sector, through the federal government, through provincial programs…. All of those things are critical.

The $50 million which will be used for northern initiatives offers a challenge to all of the members who are part of the northern development initiative board, and that is this: what are the things that we all have in common? One of our challenges is that as we come to Victoria, it's not unusual for us to talk about the north as if it was one place. The north is a vast area, and the north has different economies, has different opportunities, and has different goals and dreams for itself. As we look at how we create the northern development initiative and as the bill represents the $50 million that will be placed there for transnorthern initiatives, I think it does something and reinforces part of the northern culture that is there already. It says that we recognize the differences in the region, but we also recognize that they have a great deal in common in their objectives and where they would like to go.

I think it's probably most important for us to reflect on the fact that for too long, northern communities have had to come to Victoria and say please. This is no longer a question of please. This is a question of opportunity being developed in the north by northerners. Whether you live in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, whether you live in the Peace or the northern Rockies, whether you live in the northwest, whether you live in Terrace or in Prince Rupert, you have an opportunity now to find common goal, common purpose, and to invest resources in meeting those objectives. By levering up those objectives, we believe we will open brand-new doors of opportunity across the north.

One of the important things of this legislation is that this in no way takes the place of other government programs that are already in existence. We will continue with a substantial increase in transportation infrastructure improvements. We will continue to move towards more regionalization of the health care infrastructure across this province so people can get care closer to where they live. We will continue to expand our post-secondary opportunities in apprenticeships and in colleges and in universities so that people can get the education where they live. We will continue to work with communities to reinforce their cultural initiatives and their own goals and objectives as we move forward.

I believe that this is a critical step in the future of British Columbia. The north of our province is a critical part of our future. By providing the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, by providing $135 million to people across the great expanse of the northern part of British Columbia, we are providing keys to the future — keys to opportunity and keys that will reignite the sense of excitement and entrepreneurship we have felt across the north for the last 100-and-some-odd years in the province.

This is an exceptional initiative. It is one that we should all support. It is one that all northern communities support. It is one that helps create a brand-new future for the entire province by focusing on the strengths of our northern communities.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I, too, want to stand and fully support and speak a bit to the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, Bill 59.

It certainly is something new and innovative that has been put in place by the Premier of our province, who comes up with these kinds of innovative programs that actually start making people think about what they'd like to do in their particular region.

Hon. R. Neufeld: In fact, it's just mentioned to me that it's good news. It's really good news.

I know that yesterday, when I was with the Premier and some of the other cabinet ministers and we met with the two regional district chairs in northeast B.C. and all the mayors, they were enthused with what we brought forward and what we talked to them about. I will say that they had asked a couple of times: "What will you allow us to do with this money?" The Premier's response was: "That's a decision for you to make. What we're saying is that for your region — that's northeast B.C. — there is $15 million. You decide how you want to spend that money. You decide how you want to prioritize where that money should go. You decide whether you want to hire people to actually do some reports or some economic development ideas. You decide how you want to spend that money."

To be perfectly honest, having been a mayor in the north in the past, it was surprising to them that our Premier said: "It's your decision. We set a basic framework around the development of this $135 million fund because it is taxpayers' money, but you decide what priorities you want to put the money to." For too many years the north was actually used to fund many things that took place in the province, but very little went back into the north for infrastructure, for services that people need.

I have been fortunate enough to have been in this House since 1991. I want to thank the people of Peace River North for electing me since 1991. I guess one would think: "What's the matter with you? You had ten years of socialism stuffed down your throat every day. Were you happy to have that?" I am saying to you now that no, I wasn't happy to have that socialist attitude. I'm happy that we have a government now that believes in the north, believes in people — whether they live in Vancouver or any part of this great province of ours — and actually comes up with some of these innovative ideas, so that they can go out and do some of the things they want to do.

I remember so many things about those ten dark years, but I remember seeing a document one time about transportation in British Columbia put out by the previous government. I think it was the then Premier, Glen Clark. It's hard to remember. They had a number of them over a period of time, but I think it was under Glen Clark. When I looked at that transportation document, I think there was either Fort St. John or Dawson Creek on the map, and that was it. And no money was allocated to those regions.

It was darn pathetic what took place in northeastern British Columbia, and today we're paying the price. Today we pay the price through greater costs to actually fix up that infrastructure, because you could only beat that infrastructure for so long and then you had to put in an awful lot of money.

I will give you a couple of quick numbers. Under the NDP reign, for five years they averaged…. This is the last year they went into the election, and they really ramped up spending because they thought they'd win a few votes in northeastern B.C. In fact, they didn't. The Marijuana Party beat the candidate. Anyhow, what happened was that they spent an average of about $20 million a year on rehabilitation. Our government has seen its way clear to spend on average, over three years, about $55 million to $58 million. That's just to try to catch up and fix the things that should have been fixed when they were in office.

Mr. Speaker, this money that comes from the B.C. Rail Partnership…. Let me tell you that there was a lot of soul-searching in northeastern B.C. in regards to the B.C. Rail Partnership. I'm not going to say that all the people, all the leaders in northeastern B.C. were onside with what we were doing when we started the process, but I clearly remember yesterday Mayor Fred Jarvis saying: "You know, Mr. Premier, when you started talking about your rail investment partnership, the district of Taylor wasn't in favour of what you were doing. We weren't happy with the amount of information that we were getting, because we couldn't make a good decision. But we understand that you couldn't let all the information out.

"Now that you have released all the information — that it is a $1 billion deal; that the people of B.C. still own the right-of-way, the railbed and the tracks; that you've paid off $500 million in debt; that you have a company running a rail line that actually knows about railroads, CN…. That's their business. They have a major North American network and market to actually work that railroad in."

Now that he sees what we're doing with $135 million of that — the Premier had told them the balance of money is going into infrastructure in rural British Columbia — he's pretty happy. In fact, he fully endorsed what's going on.

He was pleased with the fact that actually he, as part of that group in northeastern B.C. — mayors and regional district chairs — will make the decisions around $15 million of how they want to expend it. That's just for the northeast. That will be $15 million in four different regions in the province.

The other thing he was excited about is that they will be able to sit on a board together with leaders from around the whole northern part of the province — from the Cariboo right through the northwest to the Prince George region in the northeast — and decide collectively how they want to spend the other $50 million. There will be a $25 million fund that's set aside in a trust, so that northern development initiative will be ongoing well into the future.

Those are exciting things for those people up there. I'm sure that in the northwest they were as excited as they were in the northeast or in the Prince George re-

gion — and we'll probably hear about that a little later on — or in the Cariboo region. There are all kinds of initiatives that these folks can take forward and start thinking about how they can apply them — how they can grow their own economy and how they can spend their own money. They're accountable to the people right there in northeastern British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this is a forward-thinking document. This comes from a government that thinks that people in different regions of the province can actually make up their own minds about their own destiny, and we're lucky in this province to finally have a Premier who agrees with that process. With the last administration, over those ten years all those decisions were made in the corner office over there with the Premier — the past Premiers, I should say — deciding on how they would actually spend money in northeastern British Columbia, on projects that they thought they knew best about. Let me tell you, there were some real projects there that fell flat on their face.

I am pleased to be able to stand up, support Bill 59 in the House, the moving forward of this new, innovative thought process. People in northeastern British Columbia will actually be able to go out and do some thinking about how they want to invest their dollars, what kind of economic activity they can create for that. There are all kinds of things that they can think about in furthering agriculture and those kinds of things in northeastern British Columbia. There are a whole host of things that could happen up there.

Those communities in northeastern B.C. have had a real growth in the last few years through initiatives that we've taken as government to actually expand and increase the oil and gas industry in northeastern B.C. As we move to expand that industry into the rest of the province, people are getting the optimism, the thought process that it's good for British Columbia. It's good to actually develop those resources in a responsible, environmentally sensitive way for the benefit of all British Columbians.

They've had some pressures in northeastern B.C. that have not been felt maybe in other parts of the province. But let me tell you that this $15 million and the other $50 million that they will be able to work with cross-jurisdictionally will certainly help alleviate some of those pressures and build more of an economic base in northeastern British Columbia so that we can continue to be the great powerhouse that we are in this great province.

So with those few words, I'd like to say again that I fully support, and the people of Peace River North are fully supportive of, the B.C. Rail investment partnership deal and want to see it move forward. The mayors and the regional district chairs are excited about what we're doing and excited about what they can do in the near future to actually develop, with that money, the things that they think are important for the people of northeastern British Columbia.

Hon. P. Bell: I am very pleased to rise, not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education, Deputy Premier and MLA for Prince George–Mount Robson, who is unable to be here with us today due to a family emergency. I can tell you that both of us are very, very excited about what is going on with the northern development initiative.

When I think back to the 1940s and fifties and what occurred with B.C. Rail as an economic development initiative in the northern part of the province and how it really opened up and created the economic opportunities, I think what a great legacy — to take a portion of the money that comes as a result of the B.C. Rail–CN partnership agreement and use it to make those further investments.

I think back to Premier W.A.C. Bennett, and I'm sure he would be proud of this decision, seeing it as a lasting legacy, an opportunity to continue to build the north economically and create the advantages and the vision that not only Premier Bennett saw but also our Premier sees for the north.

You know, it's been a long time since anyone invested in the north. Clearly, through the 1990s I lived in the north, and there was no investment in the north. They'd sprinkle around a little bridge here or something there, but really there was no significant economic investment, and whatever there was, was directed out of Victoria. In fact, when they created a patronage appointment in Prince George and called it the northern commissioner's office, they actually had that particular individual report to a deputy minister in Victoria.

That's what's really unique about the northern development initiative. Although I'm only going to take a few moments here, I'd like to focus my comments very specifically on the uniqueness of the northern development initiative and, as we've heard already, how the focus is to have northerners in charge of their own destiny. You know, I took part in some of the meetings that the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Premier referred to earlier, and it was really neat to see the expressions on the mayors' faces when they realized they were actually going to be directing these funds with very, very few constraints on them. Anything that can fit under the umbrella of economic development as an initiative is an acceptable model.

What was really interesting, I thought, was the way the mayors viewed it. They view it with caution. They want to make sure that those dollars are invested appropriately and that they leave a lasting legacy. If I can think of the one word that I heard most consistently throughout the presentation and discussion we had in Prince George, it was legacy. It was the desire to make sure, as we moved through this process with the $135 million that is there for the north, that those dollars are spent in such a way that it creates the economic opportunities we all are looking for.

Whether it's enhanced utilization of the mountain pine beetle fibre that's available; the incremental silviculture issues that we are faced with all the time; an

expanding mining industry that's already growing in leaps and bounds and facing some challenges in terms of finding sufficient people who are trained to work in the mining industry; an expanded oil and gas industry; and whether it's in the Nechako basin or the Bowser basin; enhanced fish-farming opportunities on the North Coast — there are just so many opportunities out there.

But at the end of the day, it really comes down to this. There's $135 million there, which is far more than the north has ever seen, no matter how you slice it or dice it. This is the first government that has come forward with an initiative of this size, this volume. To entrust the decision-making process to northerners to determine how that money should be spent is, in my view, truly remarkable.

With that, I would like to again congratulate — not only myself but also on behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education — the Premier on his vision for accepting the opportunity for northerners to put their hands on this economic development initiative and create huge opportunities going forward. Certainly, I think we'll all look back at this and realize how great a use of those funds it was. I am proud of not only W.A.C. Bennett and what he did but also of our Premier, who has truly stood up to that mandate and created that economic opportunity.

J. Wilson: This is indeed a great day for northern British Columbia. I am proud to stand here today and support Bill 59. For many, many years I and my constituents have watched as the money generated in the north has come south and nothing comes back. It's like everything goes into a black hole once it leaves. Today we have the reversal of that.

There's nothing new that I can say about any of this, but I would like to reinforce what my colleagues have said. The northern development initiative is something that puts those dollars in the hands of the people in the regions. That's very, very important. Up until now, they have never had the ability to direct any money that did come to where they felt it was most needed. This gives them — the people that represent the boards, who are our municipal leaders — a unique opportunity to look at their region, their towns, their cities and say: "This is the way that this money should be spent."

It's the first time that I've ever seen anything like this in this province. Thanks to the hard work of our Premier and this whole thing, this whole picture here, we are finally being recognized. The significance of the north is finally being recognized. It is indeed a good day.

In the past we have seen occasions where a government — and I can think of one or two — would download. They would put some money out, but it was actually a way of downloading. This is not downloading. This is money that's upfront, and it does not impair in any way any projects, any further advancements in the regions in the north. It is additional money that is put there through the lease of B.C. Rail to CN.

It's a unique thing in our history. It's very unique in the fact, as I've said before, that it puts that money into the hands of the people who best know how to manage it and look after it.

The other good thing that it does is it short-circuits a lot of things. They have flexibility now. They can act quickly, or they can act in a time frame that they think best suits them. They do not have to go to Victoria to get approval for anything, because they're the ones that are in charge of this. They are going to set their own destiny for the future with these funds, for the economic prosperity of all the regions in the north — the Cariboo-Chilcotin, Prince George, the west from Bulkley Valley out and the northeast corner.

So it is indeed with a great deal of pleasure that I stand in the House today and support Bill 59.

Hon. R. Harris: Like the other members, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I stand here not only to support the northern development initiative in this bill but to talk about it in a way that I think really reflects the needs of rural communities and the communities that I represent.

I was sitting here thinking about this bill for awhile. I think that in many ways it's easy to get captured and focused on just the bill. But really, what this bill does for me is…. I wrote down the word "connectivity." It finally brings together the last component of a strategy that now starts to work for northern British Columbia in a way that northerners have always wanted it to do. That's a strategy that puts in place the tools for those communities to now reach their full potential, to achieve the goals they've set for themselves.

This last week I had an opportunity to meet with an advisory board from the northwest meeting with the mayors. It was interesting listening to Herb Pond, the mayor of Prince Rupert. He said one of the most significant pieces of having this advisory board and having the $15 million for them to manage wasn't so much that they had money, although he certainly appreciated that. It was the fact that it would now force the mayors of that district and that region to come together and meet on a regular basis. It would force them to start to put together the planning process that has them looking at themselves as a lot bigger region and starting to develop common goals, common strategies, common plans that work for all of them.

I think the most important thing he said is that their measuring stick of success will not be how well the larger communities will have done, but the measuring stick of success will be: has every small community benefited from this initiative?

When I said connectivity, this is what I'm talking about. In most of the communities along the Highway 16 corridor and along the northwest and, quite frankly, in all of the north, our history is built as resource communities. We pride ourselves as being resource-dependent communities, resource extraction–industry towns, resource development. But the resource has always been the mainstay of our creation, and many

times it's our history. It's a proud history that I certainly was an active participant in. Whether that resource is gas and oil, whether the resource has been mining or whether the resource is in forestry — that is the whole component that in many cases drove these communities. It subsequently led to the building and development of mills in each of them along the way and really developed the forest industry.

Well, through the nineties a lot of things changed. We saw the mining industry disappear. We've seen technology evolve in the forest industry and change the landscape of that. The communities are still there, but the industries that built them are not the same. What has been lacking in this province for a long time is a plan that actually helps these communities, which have been crying out to find assistance in diversifying their economies, to move from resource-based and resource-dependent economies to those that allow them to become other things.

What have been some of those barriers? Certainly, the number one barrier to any community north of Hope, quite frankly, has been access to markets — the ability to connect to the world in a way that if you want to develop a product, if you want to develop an industry, if you want to build something new and bring something new into your community and the ability to move that product, whether it's bottling water or building crafts or taking the resource industries that are around you and using them further down the value-added chain and getting them into a marketplace in a manner that allows you to survive.

I lived on the Queen Charlotte Islands for almost 20 years. You can go around there and look at the kelp plant that exists in the member for North Coast's riding. What killed that plant? The inability to move their product to the marketplace in any kind of economic manner. That's another community, the islands, which is rich in peat moss — the same challenge for them. How do they actually move that product off the island?

The government in the past, especially during the nineties when we saw the resource industries take some significant hits, didn't look at any ways of how to actually help these communities bridge. Once you run into a problem where you can't get access to global markets, what's the next problem you run into? Access to capital. I can tell you that's a big issue. It's a big issue because if you do finally have a plan, it's hard to get the banking world and the investment world to look at your community differently if they see that it's incredibly difficult for you to be economically viable.

What the northern development initiative does, on top of providing funds for the north, for northerners to start to make those decisions for themselves in a very real and meaningful way is complete a strategy that now allows all those communities access to the global marketplace through a new port in Prince Rupert — a container port — and through a gateway in Prince George that takes us to the Midwest of the continental U.S.A.

It starts to put in place a world where the finance and investment community starts to look at the north differently. It allows your community to truly start to look at broadening that economic platform, becoming more than what you are, to move away from the resource dependency that's been the single-industry town and start to build on the other assets you have. The assets we have in the north are pretty extensive. We have low-cost land, when you start to look at the cost of land in the lower mainland. We have underutilized transportation grids, whether they're rail or whether they're highway. In fact, even our airports are underutilized in terms of their capacity.

When you look at the whole northern initiative, the B.C. Rail–CN partnership, we're going to start to see not only the port in Prince Rupert develop. We're going to see an airport in Prince George develop. We see the new rail transportation grid expanded. When you look at the money that we as a government are spending in the north today on building and improving the highway system, it is phenomenal. It is pretty well impossible to drive from Prince Rupert to Prince George and not be on new pavement literally the whole time. We're seeing new bridges, corners straightened — all of the things that start to make the transportation system of the northwest and the entire north an efficient model to operate on.

When the investment world starts to look at all of these dynamics, they can look at businesses and entrepreneurs that want to come forward and that have a new idea for their community, have a new idea for their business. It finally gives them the tools by which to not only get it started but to be successful.

The NDI provides an overriding agency that can create an entirely new marketing opportunity. It will be driven by the north in terms of branding that part of the world, branding it in a way that works for us. The northern development initiative allows us to take a significant amount of money — $135 million across the north — and spend it in a way that works for us. It starts putting in place the strategies that brings the investors in, and starts to connect us to the world in a way that allows us to become much more than we've ever dreamed of.

We are looking at some pretty exciting times right across the north today — the expansion of the gas and oil industry. Up Highway 37 today, we have an incredibly exciting mining industry that's just taken off. Go up to the airstrip at Bob Quinn. It looks like something out of Vietnam, in terms of the number of helicopters that are sitting down there servicing the mining industry that's going on. We have a rail partner that has the capacity today to actually now start to expand the rail and make it the economic driver that it should be in the north and hasn't been for the last number of years. These are all the beginnings of building a strong economy, building strong communities that start to create those family-supporting jobs that bring people back to the regions.

That's how we're going to build communities — by providing them with the tools they need, not just the tools but the ability to be the decision-maker in how those tools will be used. That's what is so significant

about this bill. It provides, in fact, that funding envelope that for the first time, in any real and meaningful way, puts the financial tools to coincide with the infrastructure improvements and tools that we as a government have on a broad front delivered to the north. It allows communities finally to start to reach out, broaden that economic platform and become truly more than they ever dreamed they could be.

It's an exciting time, Mr. Speaker, to be in the north in the province of British Columbia. I can tell you that I'm looking forward to the next decade.

J. Kwan: Bill 59, the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, sets up a trust for local communities to distribute a very small percentage of the B.C. Rail sale proceeds.

J. Kwan: It's interesting that I'm being heckled, of course. The question was asked about how much the previous administration gave to the north. Well, actually, let it be on the record that even the Social Credit government did not give a fair share of the oil and gas returns to the northern community. It was the NDP administration that actually signed the Fair Share deal that gave significant amounts of dollars back to the north.

So the Social Credit ministers from the previous, previous administration might want to actually check their record before they heckle me about how much was given to the north. Certainly, the Social Credit government did not see fit at the time, about the oil and gas fair share….

J. Kwan: And yes, it is about the NDP, because it was the NDP administration that signed the Fair Share deal that the Social Credit government didn't move on. So let's just be clear on the record here in terms of what the NDP did do around the northern communities.

The communities of the north, of course, are receiving, let me just say, less than 20 percent of the billion dollars the government made from betraying the trust of British Columbians. Apparently, to the government this is all their broken promise is worth. Communities throughout the north will never forget the government's broken promise. It broke its promise to not sell B.C. Rail no matter how much money was thrown at them. It is so unfortunate for these communities that the government has chosen to give them such a small portion of the proceeds of the sale. They need more, and they deserve more for enduring the betrayal of an arrogant government.

Let's look at some of the figures. The entire northwest region will get $15 million. That's it. That's all they get from a billion-dollar broken promise. The government spent $15 million on lawyers and communications for the deal. It is absolutely shameful. The B.C. Rail deal has been a disaster for British Columbia — scandals, leaks, police investigations, cancelled deals, hidden details and secrecy, Mr. Speaker. The government bungled the deal from the very beginning and refused to give British Columbians any information. And they continue to refuse to give information to British Columbians about the deal.

When my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings spoke to second reading on the bill, she clearly spelled out our objections to the sale of B.C. Rail and the government's refusal to be upfront and honest with British Columbians. We have never supported the B.C. Rail broken promise, and we never will. Let that be clear on the record. However, we have decided that we will not oppose the passing of this bill, for two reasons.

First, the communities desperately need the resources. The government has abandoned them in the last three and a half years. They have closed schools. They have reduced health care services. They have shut down courthouses. The list goes on. The communities need the money because the government has refused to adequately support them.

Secondly, the model being used to distribute and manage the money is similar to the principles of the Columbia Basin Trust, a model created and supported by the previous NDP administration. This model of local control is one we support because it will get the money out of the hands of government and actually into the communities. The Liberals have done enough damage.

I want to make something very clear. The government's broken promise to not sell B.C. Rail is unforgivable. We will never support the government's decision to betray the trust of British Columbians and sell off a profitable Crown corporation that has had no taxpayer-supported debt.

Hon. K. Falcon: Boy. You know, unfortunately I had to follow the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. How unpleasant was that dissertation that we just listened to?

This is an individual that, unfortunately, has yet to grasp just how significant this is for the northern parts of the province. I can tell you, having just been through Smithers, Terrace, Prince George and Fort St. John, meeting with those mayors, meeting with those regional district representatives, it has been absolutely outstanding feedback that we've received. They are excited about the possibilities they see with the northern development initiative. For the first time it will put dollars into the hands of northerners, and they and they alone will be making those decisions for the interests of northerners, for northerners, to the benefit of northerners. That is going to be very, very positive not just for northern British Columbia but for all of British Columbia.

I also want to say this before closing debate on second reading. I want to say that I listened with interest

to the members from northern British Columbia speak on this particular bill. I noted the passion they had in their voices when they talked about how important this was for northern British Columbia. It is because of the leadership of our Premier, who listened to residents, community leaders and elected leaders in the north who came to the government and said: "We've got a problem with B.C. Rail. It's not working for the north. We need significant new investment in that line, and when that investment is made, that will be the foundation for revitalizing northern British Columbia." The Premier recognizes, as this government recognizes, that the true revitalization of the northern economy is going to be having the most efficient, effective transportation system you can possibly imagine.

That is going to happen with the partnership with CN Rail. It's going to happen because CN Rail is going to invest the billions of dollars of private sector dollars that the government does not have, that the government is not able to take away from our health care and education to run a railway system. That's what CN brings to the table. They bring that to the table in partnership with the government that maintains ownership of the railbeds, rail tracks and rights-of-way, because that's where there's a provincial interest. That is where there is significant public interest, and that's why we undertook that partnership.

I just want to thank those members of the north — all of them — who spoke very eloquently on the northern development initiative. I know, as they know, that the same thing I heard from virtually every single mayor, every single regional chair and every single councillor that we had the opportunity to meet in the last few days is that they are genuinely excited about the northern development initiative. They are excited about a government that has taken the proceeds from the partnership arrangement with CN–B.C. Rail. They are going to be able to put that to use in their own communities.

On that, I now close and move that second reading of Bill 59, the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, is now put forward.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 59, Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

P. Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to respond in second reading to Bill 58, the B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act.

I have a few brief comments and a couple of letters that I would like to read into the record, if I may. The first is in fact a media release dated April 22, 2004, from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which was widely circulated at that time, which references the trust before us today. In part it says:

Finally, I'll read into the record, if I may, from the release of April 22 from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They go on to say:

I was fortunate enough to participate in the discussions here in the last sitting of the Legislature with respect to the first nations trust and read into the record during the course of those debates and discussions a number of letters from various first nations who were opposed to the trust, given that the trust was tied to the sale of B.C. Rail. I had asked, over the weekend in fact, for an update from Chief Harry Pierre, tribal chief of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council. He had asked that I read into the record his response to my queries — that is, wanting an update in terms of where he was at with respect to the legislation before us.

This is dated now October 18, 2004. It's current, and it's from Tribal Chief Harry Pierre of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council headquartered out of Prince George, my hometown. I'll read this into the record, and with that, I'll conclude my comments with respect to second reading of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today representing, as I do, Chief Harry Pierre of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council and others in opposing this legislation. It's unfortunate that, in fact, first nations find themselves — many of them the 25 first nations along the line — in this very difficult position — cash-strapped as many of them are, desperate for the money that is being dangled before them, tied, as it is, to the sale of B.C. Rail.

In any event, it's certainly the position of Chief Harry Pierre that he is opposed to this legislation and opposed to what it represents. I will stand for him and others that I represent in opposing this legislation.

J. MacPhail: On Bill 58, the B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act, this legislation establishes a $15 million trust for first nations along the B.C. Rail line — $15 million out of a $1 billion sellout. That $15 million is the same cost as the price tag the government spent on lawyers to sell B.C. Rail and a little bit more than they spent to communicate their spin on their broken promise. Let's see: their lawyer friends are equal in value to all of the first nations out of this deal along the B.C. Rail line. Boy, first nations must feel good.

Combined with the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, this legislation represents the only piece being given out to the people of B.C. following a scandal-plagued and secretive process. The Liberals are doling out the cash in an attempt to make people forget their broken promise. They're trying to make people forget they sold B.C. Rail Ltd. and entered into a 990-year lease. They're trying to make people forget that they betrayed their trust.

Now, the opposition in no way…. Not at all do we endorse that betrayal. We think the betrayal is despicable. However, we will not stand in the way of letting communities and first nations get access to the scraps the Liberals have offered. The only comfort we can take from this is that money will not be controlled by the Liberals. Thank goodness. They have done enough damage.

On the specifics of the bill, I want to start by advising the minister that I am making a request for some information — not through FOI, like the Liberals like to make us do, but right here, right now.

J. MacPhail: Everybody on that side of the House, the government front bench, is predicting that we're going to be out of this Legislature tomorrow. Now, that's impossible. I don't know what the Government House Leader was smoking when he said that today in the scrum to justify his cynical ploy around the Surrey–Panorama Ridge by-election.

Mr. Speaker, let me make clear I'm putting this information on the record today so the minister can get the answers when we debate this legislation at committee. We've got until the end of November when this fixed sitting finishes for him to get these answers. By the time this bill comes up for committee stage debate, I want to be able to cover all the details with the minister. Don't refer me to FOI. We've got weeks to get this information.

I will ask for information about when the government consulted with the first nations, about the details

of the transaction agreement and the revitalization agreement. I will ask who in the first nations community the government has consulted since the sale was announced. I will ask what the results of that consultation were and what those groups had to say about this bill, about the agreements and about their rights. I want specifics: dates, places, people and outcome. The minister can get this information for me ahead of time or he can have it with him in committee, but I will be asking those questions, and I will expect thorough answers.

Here's what we know so far. During estimates debate in the spring, the minister gave me a quick little rundown of the consultation the government did in regards to the legislation. Now, I noticed how he didn't say consultation on the deal but only consultation on this particular legislation. Actually, I probably shouldn't even use the word "consultation," because that's not the word that the minister used. During estimates debate, the minister said: "I'll just provide a little outline of some of the advising and informing that was done in the process of engaging first nations up and down the line."

Now, that's interesting, because it was in response to a question that I specifically asked about what consultation he did. And of course, we know that the word "consultation" has specific legal meaning in this province and in this country in relation to first nations. Maybe the minister didn't know that, but that was exactly what I was asking about — what consultation he did — and he said some of the advising and informing that was done.

Here's what they did to advise and inform, not consult. Here are the details of that advising and informing from Hansard in its entirety. "On April 10, 2003, the Premier and the former minister" — he was referring to the member for Nanaimo-Parksville — "provided a letter to all first nations along B.C. Rail's right-of-way to advise them of the government's decision to seek an operating partner…." The letter advised chiefs that government representatives would be in contact and inform them of the province's actions.

Then the province went out and implemented the grand advise-and-inform strategy. That's it. That's all we know. All first nations received was an outline of the government's intentions to find an operating partner. They were advised and informed. First nations found out, like the rest of us, in piecemeal details over months of controversy that the government was selling B.C. Rail Ltd. and embarking on a 990-year lease. Not one of those first nations was consulted about the final deal — not one. Not one was told about the terms of the lease. No one was told that the government would be able to sell CN Crown land back for $1. No one.

I'm sure the first nations are going to have a lot to discuss with the government about that secret clause and their violation of the government's obligation to consult. The advising and informing was shaky, at best, given that the details of the deal were not released to the 25 affected first nations at all.

I have to say it doesn't give me much confidence about the consultation the government did with this bill. That's why I'm giving the minister the specific questions that I'll be asking at committee stage. That's why I want the minister to provide this House with a full account of that consultation.

We've already heard some of the many concerns of the first nations, and my colleague from Prince George–Omineca has outlined some of those. Participation in the trust is not even guaranteed. Each first nation listed in section 1 of this legislation must sign on. To some of them, this feels like they have to endorse the government's broken promise. Seton Lake band chief Garry John has said: "It is nothing more than hush money." He also said: "It amounts to asking for a blind trust." Imagine the first nations groups having trouble trusting a government that promised it wouldn't sell B.C. Rail. Imagine first nations having trouble trusting a government that's going to give CN tracts of land for a buck, the same land that's subject to land claims.

Here's a column by Vaughn Palmer in the April 16, 2004, Vancouver Sun. In it he cites a comment made by a staffer within the Ministry of Attorney General last December, December 2003. "A trust fund developed wholly by the province or with limited involvement by first nations would result in the withdrawal of any support for the partnership agreement and could also potentially affect broader government relationships with the first nations communities."

As far as we know, that staffer still works for the Attorney General. The minister thinks that comment from the public official is nonsense, I'm sure, but I hope the minister took the Attorney General staff's advice.

I expect there will be a great deal to discuss at committee stage. I've already given the minister a lot of notice on the issues I want to canvass, and I expect we'll be able to canvass them in great detail. I will not accept, Mr. Speaker, answers like: "I'll get that information for you." It's simply unacceptable. He's got notice, and we've got four weeks left in this sitting. They don't have to call this bill…. Well, they have to have it passed by the end of November when this great concept of the fixed sitting will come to an end.

The people and the communities along the rail line deserve a heck of a lot more than they're getting out of this betrayal and broken promise. They want answers, and they deserve them.

Hon. R. Harris: I stand here to support this bill and talk about a few things around it. I spend a fair bit of my time in first nations communities. I have five in my own riding that I spend a lot of time visiting on an ongoing basis. I can tell you that the people of those communities have the same dreams and aspirations for their children that everybody in this province has, regardless of where they live — whether it's an aboriginal community or a non-aboriginal community.

I think that what this bill does is put in place a $15 million trust fund, a tool for first nations not unlike the remainder of the northern development initiative fund — the bill we just spoke to — which is a tool for non-aboriginal communities. It's a tool for them to use at

their discretion, at their will, to make choices about their lives for themselves. Maybe that's not important to some people, but it's awfully important to me. It is awfully important to me because first nations — just like the non-aboriginal communities that I represent and that I visit on an ongoing basis across this province, especially in the rural component — have been saying for years: "Let us have some freedom and choice in determining our future. Give us some of the tools that allow us to do this."

That's exactly what this does. It provides some of those tools. Within our ministry, we have now signed 72 forestry agreements with first nations right across this province. They're economic agreements. They're agreements that provide access to revenue-sharing as well as fibre, so that those communities can start to build themselves and use the resources around them in a way that starts to work for them, and that gives them the fair share and access to the resources of this province which, quite frankly, previous governments have denied them.

When I hear the Leader of the Opposition start to speak about how this is a betrayal to first nations communities and how we don't work with them, the evidence is pretty significant that we have done more in terms of trying to work with first nations communities, trying to put in place and provide them with the tools they need to achieve their dreams, than any other government before us and specifically her government.

This $15 million doesn't come with ties. She can sit there and rail away about how this has treaty implications. But it doesn't. It's a tool; it's an opportunity. I'm interested to see how she votes, because it will be interesting to see if she wants to vote against providing $15 million to first nations communities.

I do live in the world and do remember the Northern Development Commission — their great brainchild. It was funded to the tune of $2 million a year. It had a northern commissioner who reported directly to Victoria, who got a lot of his direction out of Victoria. It wasn't about decisions and funding being put in the north; it was about as tokenism as you get. Between the bill we've just spoken to and this bill, we are seeing this government — the only government in the history of this province — put significant dollars into the north in a way that has never been done before — period.

There is no denying that. There is no denying that it is also being put there in a manner that creates structures that allow northerners, whether they're aboriginals or non-aboriginals, to make those decisions about their lives without the interference of governments in Victoria. I think that's very important. It's too bad the Leader of the Opposition doesn't share that view. It's certainly not a view they ever encouraged, supported or advocated for when they were in government. It's why I'm very proud to be part of this government. Not only do we support it and advocate for it, but we're actually doing it.

I'm very pleased to stand here to support this bill today. I think it is, in fact, exactly what communities across the north have been asking for, and it will be a great tool to finally allow all communities to reach the potential that they have and the goals that they've set for themselves.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 58. The Minister of Transportation closes debate.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just before I move the motion for second reading, I do want to make a couple of comments in reference to some of what I heard, particularly from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. Not surprisingly, the member for Vancouver-Hastings continues to misrepresent the most fundamental facts about the partnership arrangement between B.C. Rail and CN. I imagine that it is sort of an increasing sign of desperation because they recognize that right across northern British Columbia, there is growing excitement about the importance of this partnership arrangement and what it's going to mean to northern communities and indeed the province.

The recognition is growing because, as I have indicated before, the foundation for a revitalized northern economy is an efficient transportation system. That is absolutely crucial to realizing the dreams and the potential of northern British Columbia. Every shipper, every lumber producer and every mill that relies on getting its goods to markets south of the border need to ensure that they can get to their customers as efficiently and effectively as they possibly can, and that's exactly what will happen under the partnership arrangement.

What that member fails to realize and continually misrepresents is the fact that she's fixated with this talk about sale. Well, actually, the member needs to read the legislation and the partnership agreement and the transaction agreement. What we've done is maintained public ownership. We've maintained Crown ownership of the railbed, of the rail tracks, of the right-of-way, and we did that specifically because that is where the public interest is. That is our Crown asset. That has not changed, and that confuses the member opposite. I think the member opposite just doesn't quite understand that.

We clearly know that she doesn't understand what a lease arrangement is. She talks about a 999-year lease. Of course that's absurd. It's a 60-year lease with a 30-year renewal option, and there are options to renew beyond that. It's very similar to those that might have an office lease and sign a five-year term. They have five-year options to renew. It doesn't mean they signed a 15-year lease. They signed a five-year lease with options to renew. But I recognize that has always been a challenge for the member opposite.

I will say this. I have never been more proud to be part of a government under the leadership of a Premier that has done more for first nations in three years than we've seen achieved in the last 30. I don't just say that. I actually listen to those voices in the first nations that will tell you that the progress that has been made under this government in the last few years has been dramatic. It has been extraordinary, and it has been historic. I'm proud of that.

This is another step in that direction, whether it is the doubling of the First Citizens Fund from $36 million to $72 million or whether it is the revenue-sharing agreements that have been undertaken, particularly with the Minister of Forests, which have created new opportunities and new hopes for those first nations communities that have taken part in that. All of those create options to create independence, new pride, new opportunities and new tools for self-reliance for those first nations.

That is exactly what Bill 58 will also achieve. The B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act will provide $15 million. Now, I hear the member opposite talk about that in a way that disparages that, as if that's some very small amount of money. As the member for Skeena correctly pointed out, what did they achieve in their term? Well, they had a northern commissioner that cost about $2 million a year, most of that eaten up in bureaucracy. What possible benefit was there in the north?

The northern development commissioner's role was actually to try and fix all the problems that their fundamental economic policies had created. You know, they create the problems. Then they hire more bureaucrats to try and fix the problems they've created. That's the NDP approach to trying to deal with opportunity in the north.

We have a different approach. Our approach is to actually build reliance. Our approach is to provide the tools so that first nations can share in the opportunities that will be realized through the CN–B.C. Rail investment partnership. And $15 million, even invested at a 4 percent return, represents about $600,000 a year in interest alone. That's about $50,000 a month.

I tell you, that actually helps create reliance for those first nations. They and they alone — those participating first nations that wish to participate in the first nations benefits trust — will decide what is in the best interests of those 25 first nations that have had a historical relationship with B.C. Rail over the years. That is a continuation of the policy of this government to provide the tools and the opportunities for first nations to achieve their dreams and realize their opportunities.

Finally, I will say this. The members opposite and one other member have suggested that this in some way takes away from the treaty rights of first nations. Again, that is simply not the case. In fact, we have a clause in the bill, if they would take the time to read clause 11…. Clause 11 makes it very clear that nothing in the act in any way will take away or derogate or abrogate the constitutional rights and treaty obligations with the first nations of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, with those concluding remarks, I now move second reading of Bill 58, the B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 58, B.C. Rail Benefits (First Nations) Trust Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 65; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

W. Cobb: Most of my questions were answered around this. What I would like to ask the minister is in regard to the revenue account, the stumpage rates and what not. How is this rate actually going to be calculated?

Hon. R. Harris: There is no firm provincial silviculture fee. This will be calculated on a district-by-district basis. That's going to change, obviously, if you are in the Queen Charlotte Islands where the average hectare or stands are significantly heavier than in Lytton. Some of these dynamics are going to change. The calculation

for this will be done on a district-by-district basis, and that's yet to be determined.

Hon. R. Harris: I move that the committee report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 65, Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 75; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. K. Falcon: The primary purpose, to the member opposite, is that the addition of the term "designated tolls" is required so the GVTA can legally recover its costs in relation to designated projects. The term "designated tolls" is added to make it specific to new yet-to-be-constructed road projects.

J. MacPhail: I'll get to that in a minute, but the section is much broader than just talking about designated tolls. What is the purpose of adding section 3?

Hon. K. Falcon: The GVTA has the ability to establish standards on the major road network. These proposed roads that will form part of the proposed crossing are roads that will not, at least initially, be part of the major road network. What this does is provide them with the ability to, essentially, properly manage and administer the proposed road network.

J. MacPhail: It does more than that. It adds the ability. This is a new ability that the GVTA has. The change enables the GVTA — TransLink…. I'm actually going to call it TransLink, because that's what the public is familiar with. GVTA creates TransLink; TransLink is the brand name of the GVTA. The change enables TransLink to implement for the first time its own separate highway construction and maintenance standards, separate and distinct from those in place for provincial highways. Over time some are predicting that there will be an evolution of two different sets of highway standards in this region — one for provincial highways and a different one for the regional major road network.

This is a safety issue, if you ask me, Mr. Chair. Highway standards are all about configuration of road design, frequency and nature of repair. As an example, for Canada, with the national highway system, those kinds of construction and maintenance standards are established in a collaborative, collegial way via the Transportation Association of Canada. The provinces work collegially with the Transportation Association of Canada.

Given the fact that that collegiality already exists and that provinces across the country already abide by the same standards, what is the purpose of giving TransLink separate and distinct highway standards from those of the province?

Hon. K. Falcon: They've always had that separate ability to deal with the major road network and apply their own standards with municipal roads. They do that, have done that and will continue to do that. All we are doing here is ensuring that for these to-be-constructed roads, they have the ability to manage and administer these roads appropriately until such time as they become, perhaps in the future, part of the major road network.

J. MacPhail: I have the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority legislation here. Could the minister point me to where the GVTA currently has the ability to implement its own separate highway construction and maintenance standards?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would refer the member to section 4(1)(a) of the GVTA Act, which states: "Subject to this Act, the authority must do the following to carry out its purpose: (a) manage and operate the regional transportation system." The thing that the member might not recognize that is different here is that TransLink, to use the term the member prefers to use, have never built this kind of new construction before. They are normally used to managing an existing network, but they've never built this kind of newer project before. What this does is just ensure that GVTA has the

ability to put in place reasonable standards to ensure the functionality and the smooth operation of the proposed crossing.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so it's a news story. They didn't have these powers before, and they do now. Let's just be clear about that. Why aren't they provincial standards? Why aren't they just subject to the provincial standards?

Hon. K. Falcon: Primarily because it is not a provincial highway. I think that the member probably knows that all municipalities have always had the ability to set their own road standards. They always have, and presumably, certainly, under this government they will always have that ability.

I might refer the member to section 19 of the GVTA, which refers specifically to "Standards for major road network"; that's the title. It says: "Subject to this Part, the authority may, by bylaw, establish standards for the management, operation, construction and maintenance of all or any part of the major road network." Again, really all we're doing is ensuring they have that same ability on a new project, which they've never undertaken before.

J. MacPhail: I just gave an example of where, in previous situations, there was collaboration to ensure that the standards where there was a conjoining of projects — whether it be municipal or provincial, provincial or federal…. It was done through an association. Is the minister guaranteeing that there will be nothing less than the provincial standards in terms of construction and maintenance?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I can confirm to the member is that there will be no change in TransLink's ability to manage and set their own standards on the road network, as they have always done. In fact, it is in TransLink's own best interests to ensure that they maintain and put into place standards that are going to be efficient.

Actually, the whole functionality of their proposed crossing is going to be driven by the fact they've got commonsense standards in place to ensure that it works efficiently. They will continue to have that ability, as they've always had, and I have no doubt that TransLink will govern themselves in the most appropriate fashion.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that this clause adds absolutely nothing — absolutely nothing new?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. As I said to the member, what it does add is the ability to distinguish between the fact that the existing legislation speaks about an existing road network…. This is not existing, obviously. It's proposed, so this is new. Therefore, it is clarifying that they have the ability to set those standards for this new crossing.

J. MacPhail: Let me ask the minister, then: for the new road construction, does the minister guarantee that TransLink's standards will be no less than those standards put in place for previous construction and maintenance?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. You know, I can't obviously…. I don't run TransLink, and I think the member understands that. What I can say is that I have no doubt TransLink will employ the best engineering practices to ensure that the structures and roads they put in place will meet the functionality requirements to ensure they have a crossing that meets all the appropriate engineering standards. They've done that pretty well on the existing road network, and I have every confidence they will do that on the new proposed network.

J. MacPhail: There's an amendment in this clause to section 15 of the original act. The amendments seem to compel TransLink to consult when new tolls are being considered. However, there are also amendments under the same section, particularly 15(4)(b), that say that TransLink may impose a toll and not consult with the public if the GVRD board of directors has ratified the toll. Can the minister explain that?

J. MacPhail: I have another question on section 4. Sorry. I should have been referring to subsection 4 of section 4 — okay?

Now, this expands the expropriation powers for TransLink. Can these expanded appropriation powers be used to benefit a private company?

Hon. K. Falcon: Section 4 does provide the ability, very narrowly defined, for TransLink to allow a subsidiary of TransLink to carry out the authority's purposes. You will see in subsection 5, just below it, that the authority's purposes are defined in relation to a designated project, either RAV or the Coquitlam line.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's interpretation that the expanded expropriation powers are limited to benefit a construction project of TransLink?

J. MacPhail: Section 6 of this act amends section 15 of the GVTA Act. Again, I'll start my question over again that was inappropriately put on a previous section.

It seems that these amendments to section 15 of the original act appear to compel TransLink to consult when new tolls are being considered. But there is also an amendment to section 15(4)(b) that says that the GVTA, TransLink, may impose a toll and not consult with the public if the GVRD board of directors has ratified the toll. My question is this: does this mean tolls may be imposed on the basis of sort of multi-year funding plans passed by both the GVTA and the GVRD? Can they predict tolls into the future on a multi-year plan? Therefore, when the actual proposed toll is about to be implemented and there has not been a vote on that specifically, doesn't it require a public consultation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Section 15, as it currently stands, has an existing requirement that TransLink must consult when assessing any designated tolls. That consultation requirement is there, and that does not change.

All that 6(4)(a) and (b) do is essentially say that since TransLink has already consulted…. So they've done the consultation they're already required to do. If they've had the bylaw subsequently ratified, they don't need to come back and do more consultations, because they've done the consultations already. It's been ratified by the GVRD board, and they don't need to come back and consult again after the ratification.

The other part essentially says that if they're reducing any tolls — if it results in the reduction of taxes or tolls — that does not require any consultation. That's consistent with the existing practice.

J. MacPhail: Section 7 also deals with designated tolls. I would like an explanation of the whole clause together, both sections (a) and (b), which amends section 16 of the original act. My interpretation of this piece here is that if TransLink, GVTA, decides by a two-thirds majority that an increase in taxes or charges is necessary to meet debt obligations, then the GVRD loses its ability to vote on such a decision, as it would with any other bylaw. If my interpretation is correct, that seems to significantly reduce the role of the GVRD in its position as a guarantor of the debt.

Hon. K. Falcon: What is happening here is that the existing powers of the authority under section 16(3) spell out, essentially, that a bylaw assessing a tax, a project toll charge, a motor vehicle charge or a parking tax does not require ratification by the GVRD board of directors if…. Then it goes on in subsection (a) and (b) and essentially says that the board, after examining all the capital and operating expenditure issues, determines it's unavoidable to meet debt obligations, then the board passes the requirement by two-thirds ratification. All this does is add, in those existing powers that are already in place, the term a designated toll, which is consistent with the changes that were described earlier.

For the member's edification, my understanding is that in the model that they're proposing, TransLink is proposing a non-recourse scenario that will not allow a recourse situation to come back onto TransLink or the GVRD. But what they want to ensure regardless, if they change the model or if the model didn't work or whatever the eventuality, is that the designated toll is included in the existing capabilities that they have consistent with what they already have in terms of project charges or motor vehicle charges, etc.

J. MacPhail: This section does more than just add the designated toll to it. The addition of Section 29.1(5) is a new form of an exemption where there is a requirement for resolution by the GVRD, but that requirement is then exempted in the earlier part of the amendment.

What I'm asking is…. This section seems to say that GVRD doesn't get a say. All I'm asking is for the minister to ensure that GVRD does get a say in whether there are going to be changes to bylaws that involve debt obligations.

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess the way of stating this and trying to be clear about it is that this isn't the standard operating procedure. So the member is correct, actually, in saying that under 29.1(5), that lays out the responsibilities of the board in terms of ratification. That won't change at all.

This is actually the fallback position if the business model changed. So if it changed from a non-recourse model, this is the fallback position that really builds on what was already there and in place with respect to project toll charges, motor vehicle charges, etc. It just adds the term "designated tolls" to that fallback position.

J. MacPhail: On section 11, it's hard to…. This is a very major addition to the old act, and the explanatory notes are meagre — that's a polite word for saying what they are — so I need some information about this. Is this section the section that permits the GVTA TransLink to put a tax on parking stalls? The reason

why I ask that, Mr. Chair, is because I was trying to find out where it is in the legislation that the parking stall tax is permitted.

Hon. K. Falcon: Section 30(2) of the original GVTA Act, which I believe was introduced and passed in 1998, allows for the assessment of the parking tax. That's the vehicle that allows for the assessment of the parking tax. What section 11 does, essentially, is to define the exemptions that will be governed under the establishment of the roll necessary for carrying out the implementation that was anticipated back in section 30(2).

Hon. K. Falcon: The tools to implement the tax that was authorized by section 30(2) would need to be implemented. Part of what we were doing here is providing the tools for the implementation of the tax that was authorized back in 1998.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, obviously, until the ability to implement the tax is in place, you can't have the tax in place until you provide the tools necessary for them to carry out what was provided under section 30(2) in the original legislation.

Without this section 11, without this amendment that the government is bringing in, does GVTA have the ability to impose a parking stall tax legally?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, they certainly could, but I believe it wouldn't be a particularly productive piece of legislation. What this does is ensure that the ability to implement through the establishment of a roll will ensure that the appropriate exemptions are put into place to ensure it's carried out in a thoughtful, considered way.

J. MacPhail: So we don't need this section? The minister's view is that we can go to TransLink tomorrow and say, "Sorry, but you don't need section 11, so go ahead and do your parking stall tax," because they're planning a parking stall tax. The minister knows that, and he's been holding it as a chip. This is the tax, the parking stall tax, that the minister has been holding as a chip.

One day he petulantly says: "I'm not going to allow them to have their parking stall tax." Then the next day, he said: "Oh, I'll allow them to have their parking stall tax." What did the minister mean? If they could have gone ahead under the current legislation to do their own parking stall tax, what was he threatening, and what's the purpose of this section if it's not needed?

Hon. K. Falcon: Really, the most critical thing here is that yes, they could go ahead and implement the parking stall tax without benefit or cooperation of the provincial government, but what this does is to allow them to piggyback on the existing assessment roll and abilities of the B.C. Assessment Authority so that they can do it in such a manner that it is actually more effective and will be more efficient in terms of collection. I've always been clear that if we can be of assistance in trying to bring that forward, of course, we will do that.

J. MacPhail: Under what definition would they have brought it forward? Tell me exactly how they would have brought it forward under section 30. Where would a parking stall, as is contemplated now to be taxed by GVTA…? What definition provides for a parking stall — for the new tax?

Hon. K. Falcon: If I refer the member to section 30(2), it says that they may: "by bylaw, assess a parking tax on one or both of (a) the taxable parking area of parking sites located in the transportation service region, and (b) the taxable parking spaces of parking sites located in the transportation service region."

J. MacPhail: I might just remind the minister that I created this legislation along with a group of a lot of other people. At the time, parking stall taxes were never contemplated and never proposed. These definitions were very specifically written. Could the minister refer to, in definitions 30(1)…?

By the way, if the minister somehow thinks that these answers are going to preclude me from holding the Premier accountable for the promise he made, he's wrong. It's a new tax, and the Premier's promise was that any new tax implemented under the then legislation would be subject to a referendum. All I'm getting at is that this is even a double whammy of a broken promise.

Could the minister refer me to the definition of "parking site" — (a), (b), (c), (d) — that is a parking stall. I just want to know. I want to know how this government interprets the current legislation without the benefit of the past interpretation. That's all. Just assign it under the current legislation.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, I am aware that the member actually drafted the legislation.

Hon. K. Falcon: That's right. I believe the Attorney General is indicating he was present at the birth of this wondrous piece of legislation.

The legislation is very clear. Section 30(2) says that they may — not might — by bylaw "assess a parking tax on one or both of (a) the taxable parking area of parking sites located in the transportation service region." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

The only thing that has changed is that the GVTA, in an effort to improve the efficiency and the ability for them to collect that tax efficiently, has approached us

wishing to piggyback on the existing assessment roll. We're delighted to work with them in a cooperative way to ensure that can be done in a manner that keeps costs down and allows them to efficiently collect the tax they always had the authority to collect.

J. MacPhail: Let's put that to the test, then. Section 11(e) at (4.1) says property classes 7 and 9 are exempt from assessment of a parking tax. Show me in the original legislation where that would be. Just show me.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pretty sure the member isn't suggesting that we should be assessing farms or managed forest lands, because that's what sections 7 and 9 refer to. What we are doing is saying that if they wish to piggyback on the provincial assessment roll in an effort to ensure that there are efficiencies, etc., there will be the appropriate exemptions to ensure, of course, that a parking tax is not applied to areas they should not be applied to.

J. MacPhail: Exemptions from what? What section in the original legislation requires those exemptions to allow a parking stall tax? Just show me. The reason why I'm confused is the words of the minister himself, where TransLink, on September 14, was asking…. Particularly the TransLink chair:

Today the minister is saying that TransLink could do it. They don't need this legislation. That's why I'm confused — completely. Of course, the minister himself ordered the fast-tracking of the legislation, because it was needed in order to allow for parking stall tax. This is my point. The Premier promised a referendum on all fees, levies and taxes that were going to be imposed under the old legislation.

You may recall, Mr. Chair, that the previous administration was going to ask ICBC to collect a vehicle levy, and there was a huge outcry from the public. At the time, the Premier said they wouldn't impose any new tax. It was in response to the vehicle levy that was already allowed under the legislation. They weren't going to impose any new tax without a referendum.

So here we are. Not only is there a new tax that will be imposed that does not exist…. The minister admitted it doesn't exist, and they've had to draft very comprehensive legislation. The chair of TransLink says he can't go ahead without it, so please move heaven and earth. The minister fast-tracked the legislation so they could do this parking stall tax — and no referendum. Another broken promise.

The Minister of Transportation is going to stand up and say: "Oh, it's not a new tax." In fact, that's not what the Premier's commitment was anyway. Of course it's a new tax. A new tax is one that doesn't exist. The tax doesn't exist. It's not being applied. The motor vehicle levy didn't exist. It was in response to that that the Premier said: "Oh, we wouldn't do any such thing without a referendum."

The hypocrisy of this government. The Minister of Transportation thinks, with his big majority — his big, autocratic majority — that he can stand up and say: "This isn't a new tax, so the Premier isn't breaking another promise." How hypocritical. He admits that it doesn't exist. There's massive legislation, without which the tax would be impossible, and now he joins with the Premier himself in being a hypocrite.

J. MacPhail: Here's another section where it turns out that ICBC is going to be used as a tool to impose penalties on British Columbians. Not penalties — it's going to be a collector. Now, let's go back to the history I just outlined of what the Premier said. TransLink asked ICBC to be the collector of the motor vehicle levy. Outrage by the then Liberal opposition — absolute outrage. How dare they do that? Maybe the member from West Vancouver–Seymour remembers. He was part of that outrage.

What do we have here? Well, my interpretation of this section is that ICBC will be the collection agent for a private company that might be managing a toll road. Is that going to be permitted under this clause?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am greatly tempted to respond to much of the rhetorical flourish on the other side there. It's so, so tempting. I imagine that the member implemented so many taxes during her term that she forgets about them all, and that's understandable.

Section 13, which the member talks about…. I believe the question, if I understood the member correctly, was whether ICBC will be the collection agent. No. What this section says is that ICBC will share information with the GVTA sufficient that the GVTA has the ability to charge or collect their tolls.

J. MacPhail: Let me just read into the record what this section does, Mr. Chair — section 26(1) of this government's legislation: "The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may, without a hearing, refuse to issue a driver's licence to a person who…."

J. MacPhail: Excuse me. Just let me sit down for a second, please, Mr. Chair, and I'll find my place.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. On all of my notes I'm two sections off. My apologies for that.

Let me read section 15 into the record. It amends section 26 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Here's how it amends it: "26(1) The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may, without a hearing, refuse to issue a driver's licence to a person who (b) is indebted to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for any motor vehicle indebtedness." Then it adds: "(c) is indebted to the government because of his or her failure to pay a fine, or a victim's surcharge levy within the meaning of the Victims of Crime Act, imposed as a result of a conviction under…." Okay, so all of those. Sorry, section 21. That's how it reads now.

All of these previous conditions involve debt either to the government or to ICBC. This new section is added to 26(1), which is where ICBC can refuse to issue a driver's licence if there's a debt outstanding. It adds this, and I'll read it in full: "The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may, without a hearing, refuse to issue a driver's licence to a person who (f)" — this is added — "is indebted to the authority, a subsidiary or a billing organization for an excessive toll debt, as those terms are defined in the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act." Then there's also a new section added permitting information-sharing between ICBC and GVTA or its subsidiaries or a billing organization.

The minister was referring to saying that they would just share information, but no, there's a real and serious consequence here. ICBC is now going to be used to refuse a person a licence if they have an outstanding debt to GVTA. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct. It's correct because without the efficient and cost-effective enforcement mechanism, obviously you would have substantial toll revenue loss because people would just ignore it and wouldn't pay. These amendments are critically necessary, frankly, to support the non-recourse financing model that TransLink wishes to move forward with.

J. MacPhail: So we are using ICBC now as a tool. Isn't that interesting? In fact, it's a lot worse — this legislation. ICBC is actually going to be the guillotine for the GVTA. They're not merely going to be the collector of a fee. They're going to be the guillotine, where a person has his or her driver's licence taken away because ICBC is going to do that for failure to pay a toll debt to GVTA — again, hypocrisy beyond belief from what the government said was outrageous under the previous administration.

Not only have they completely implemented using ICBC as a guillotine, a henchman for GVTA — which they were outraged at under the previous administration — but they've also now allowed for a new tax, and they're not having a referendum. What hypocrites. Also, the person is going to lose their licence without a hearing.

I just want to ask the minister about the situation that arose in Ontario when the registrar of motor vehicles was mandated to deny Ontario drivers the right to renew their licence plates for non-payment of Highway 407 tolls — the same thing this government is doing. Nice. Since then, however, the plate denial for non-payment was suspended. The registrar said it would remain suspended until the company can demonstrate that its systems are accurate. Is the minister aware of this? What guarantees are in place that the toll collection system is accurate prior to the imposition of this draconian legislation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I think that would be a question better directed to her colleagues on the TransLink board. I think the critical thing that the member must surely understand, because if I think I hear the member saying we ought not to provide ICBC with that ability, then….

Hon. K. Falcon: Just a minute, member. You have an opportunity to speak, and I think I have an opportunity to respond.

If the member thought about it perhaps, for more than 30 seconds, she would recognize that if you did not have the ability to enforce payment of tolls, you would have a catastrophic situation where the entire financial viability of the proposed crossing would come into question. That certainly is going to affect the ability to set up a non-recourse model, which I understand TransLink wishes to move forward with. I'm quite certain that the member would not want to kneecap them in such a way that it would make their ability to move forward with that kind of a non-recourse model impossible.

J. MacPhail: The minister shouldn't put any words in my mouth. All I'm pointing out is that with a great hypocrisy, this government is now using ICBC in exactly the way they decried with great horror the previous government. The minister can't provide any guarantees that they will assure British Columbians that the fiasco that occurred with the same system in place in Ontario, which had to be suspended indefinitely, won't happen here.

This is taking longer than I had imagined. Let me specifically ask this question. Section 16(2) reads as follows: "Subject to subsection (4), a municipality may enter into an agreement with the authority in relation to the project even if the effect of a provision of the agreement

in relation to a matter described in subsection (3) is to (a) limit or eliminate council's legislative powers, or (b) cause council to provide assistance to a business."

What I want to know is if this in any way limits future council ability to legislate.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member probably knows that Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act amendments — MEVA amendments, as they're commonly known — are required whenever municipalities enter into an arrangement that will have, in any way, an ability to fetter future councils.

Obviously, when they enter into a decision to, for example, put into place a new crossing, there will be decisions made with respect to road networks, etc., which are going to be necessary to ensure that future councils don't have the ability to put into place provisions that may block, frustrate or otherwise cause enormous problems in terms of the ability to move traffic, collect tolls and ensure the project is viable. That's why the MEVA amendments are required — very common. This is continuing in that tradition.

J. MacPhail: Well, yes, that's my point. It is continuing in a tradition, but this government promised to change that. The province promised to treat municipalities as an "order of government within their own jurisdiction," so I'm just testing that. Normally the legislative body in an order of government, be it parliament or Legislature, cannot fetter the decisions of future governments. So I'm testing it.

I'm testing the government's commitment to treat municipalities as an order of government. This legislation takes the protection away from future municipal governments and their citizens. It's taking away their promise to treat municipalities as an order of government within their jurisdiction.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, that is possibly the worst interpretation I think I can ever possibly imagine for a MEVA amendment. I might suggest to the member that she should talk to those municipalities.

The four participating municipalities in the GVTA actually came to us asking for this MEVA amendment. This is necessary for them to enter into a new agreement that they wish to voluntarily enter into among themselves. That would be, for the member's edification, Pitt Meadows, Langley, Surrey and Maple Ridge. This is at their request. I'm pretty certain that that member would not want us to thwart the reasonable request of municipalities wishing to move forward on a project in a cooperative manner.

J. MacPhail: Of course they have to do that, because the Community Charter isn't in force and effect — is it? No. I'm testing the government's commitment.

J. MacPhail: So how does this affect the government's commitment to treat municipalities as an order of government?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's absolutely consistent with the provisions and the direction of the charter. This is a case where you have four municipalities that wish to enter into an agreement with the GVTA to ensure that the road network they put into place for the proposed Fraser River crossing, which they're all very excited about, has the ability to operate in a functional and effective manner. That's what this amendment allows. As I say, it's a request from those municipalities in the GVTA, and we're cooperating with them.

J. MacPhail: What changes are made under section 17, by implementing this section, to the right of a municipality to exercise its own permits, approvals and authorizations on behalf of its citizens?

I'm in section 17 of Bill 75. This is enabling the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project. Section 17(3) states: "The processes and conditions established in an agreement described in subsection (2) apply, to the extent provided for in the agreement, instead of the permits, approvals or authorizations and any related processes or conditions that would otherwise be required by or under the Community Charter, the Local Government Act or the Vancouver Charter, in relation to the project within the municipality."

When I read that…. I'm quite aware of the transparent process that these municipalities have for permitting, approval and authorization on behalf of the citizens. Well, subsection (3) says those no longer apply, and it will be entered into in some sort of agreement. So the legislation is actually overridden by this section.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is actually, in many ways, very similar to a process that was established with the Millennium Line. Richmond and Vancouver and the GVTA wish to enter into an agreement. They've already got, right now, a design and construction advisory process that will ensure that they can move expeditiously through this process to meet the time lines of construction completion by 2009. This really allows them to do so in a manner which they have agreed jointly is the most efficient and effective way to do so — through this new agreed-upon process which is similar to the process, as I mentioned, that was established with the Millennium Line.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, that Millennium Line project — completed in record time and under budget. I wish this government could do as well, quite frankly.

Let me ask the minister this, then. Certain rules disappear under this amendment — rules that were

available under the Vancouver Charter; the Community Charter; and the Local Government Act, the LGA. What processes are in place for transparency and accountability that are lost — the rules of transparency and accountability and public consultation that disappear with this amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: The new agreement that has been proposed has a public consultation process associated with it. That process will be there and available for those municipalities.

Hon. K. Falcon: They haven't completed the agreement yet. They need this legislation to give them the ability to enter into that agreement. Once they enter into that agreement, as I've said, they have been very clear that it will include the public consultation processes the member refers to.

J. MacPhail: Last question, Mr. Chair. I assumed the minister said the agreement does contain that, and now we find out that it may or will contain it.

Does the minister guarantee that the agreement that replaces the transparency and accountability and public consultation measures in those three pieces of legislation will be included in the agreement that substitutes for the legislation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Let me just say this. I actually respect the ability of municipalities to enter into agreements and to provide the kind of provisions like, for example, public consultation. I treat them as adults, actually. This is not a case of big government trying to treat them like children. They are quite capable of entering into agreements where they have been very clear that they will have a public consultative process. I'm not going to second-guess that process.

J. MacPhail: There's much more than public consultation included in approving and permitting in the three acts that are now suspended as a result of this legislation. I find that just insulting — the minister's last comment. There's much more than public consultation. Of course, without prodding by me, people would have been left with the idea that "Oh, the agreement is already in place." We'll be watching that agreement very carefully.

Hon. K. Falcon: I would suggest to the member that that question is probably better directed to the GVTA and the participating municipalities of Richmond and Vancouver. I don't imagine there would be any reluctance on their part to do so, but I would suggest that the member talk to them.

Bill 75, Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 74 amends various statutes to clarify provisions, correct inadvertent errors and make a number of minor housekeeping amendments. First, amendments to the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter ensure that interim amendments made by regulation through the Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003, will now be enshrined in the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter.

Specifically, this amendment to the Community Charter continues to ensure the tax-exemption eligibility for community care facilities and registered assisted-living residences operating under the new Community Care and Assisted Living Act. This addresses a technical issue arising from the phase-in of the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. Also consequential to this phase-in, Bill 74 amends the Community Charter to remove references to private hospitals.

The amendment to the Vancouver Charter, section 2.1, adds a provision to clarify that definitions from the Community Charter and the Local Government Act apply to the application of those acts to the city of Vancouver.

Section 15 of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) was added in spring 2004 to validate floodplain bylaws of local governments. The current amendment to section 15 simply corrects an internal cross-reference error that resulted from the renumbering of the bill in which the spring 2004 amendment was contained.

There is an amendment to the Strata Property Act. This amendment will correct an error and restore the original intent of the legislation. The new section will ensure that lawsuits cannot be defeated as a result of an internal procedural error of a strata corporation. The

amendment, which is retroactive in nature, will clarify that a lawsuit commenced on behalf of some strata owners without their prior consent does not invalidate the suit and that the consent requirement is intended to protect the interests of strata owners, not to operate as a defence to the lawsuit.

Bill 74 introduces amendments to schedules C and D of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act to adjust the boundary descriptions for six parks, including one to allow improvements to the Sea to Sky Highway for the 2010 Olympics. It also corrects inadvertent errors in six boundary descriptions and renames one marine park.

The bill also makes a housekeeping amendment to clarify seizure provisions under the Environmental Management Act. These amendments continue our government's ongoing work towards improving the management of British Columbia's parks and protected areas.

Section 43 of the Medicare Protection Act, which provides a statutory right of appeal from decisions of the Medical Services Commission, was inadvertently repealed in the fall 2003 session. Amendments in this bill reinstate section 43, which will reinstate the statutory right of physicians to appeal orders of the Medical Services Commission in cases where they have been found guilty of misconduct or inappropriate billings. Reinstating this right will ensure that individuals adversely affected by an order of the commission would have a right to appeal the decisions to the Supreme Court.

An amendment to the Court Rules Act is complementary to a recent amendment to this act introduced earlier in this session as Bill 64, the Justice Modernization Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, at section 4. It's simply a housekeeping amendment to repeal an earlier amendment to section 2(1) of the Court Rules Act that is not in force.

The Police Act is being amended in this bill to provide statutory immunity from civil actions to members of PrimeCorp, the non-profit board that oversees the police records information management environment — which is also called PRIME — B.C.'s police communications and records management system. This change will bring the PrimeCorp board in line with similar provincial boards. It is the government's objective to make PRIME the common platform for police information management and reporting throughout the province by 2005.

Hon. G. Plant: As I was saying, the bill contains proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act that will extend the time for regulations to be developed to expand driver's licence validity periods in the event of an ICBC labour disruption. These changes will allow B.C. drivers whose licences expire during an ICBC work stoppage to continue to hold a legally valid licence.

Government originally changed the act in 2003 to allow for driver's licence validity periods to be extended through regulation, if required. That amendment expires on December 31, 2004. The new change will last until December 31, 2006, giving the parties more time to reach an agreement. These provisions can be repealed by regulation, should a new collective bargaining agreement be concluded earlier.

In addition, Bill 74 amends the Gaming Control Act to clarify vague references and correct drafting errors. For example, references to the word "facilities" are being changed to the words "gaming facilities" to be more precise. Registration to work in the gaming industry will be subject to more defined suitability requirements and terms, to provide greater certainty and to protect public safety.

Amendments are required to the first Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, to correct a cross-referencing error and to bring two sections into force. The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, allowed the repeal as of July 23, 2004, of the Community Financial Services Act. At that time, a cross-referencing error was discovered which prevented bringing sections 43 and 44 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, into force to complete the dissolution of the Community Financial Services Corporation. Amendments in this bill will bring sections 43 and 44 of the act into force retroactively, effective July 23, 2004, thereby completing the dissolution of the corporation.

Bill 74 also contains several amendments to the new Securities Act to ensure that that act and related rules can be implemented as intended. The amendments facilitate the adoption of harmonized interfaces that are designed to allow market participants from British

Columbia and other provinces to meet their local securities regulatory requirements for compliance with equivalent requirements in other provinces. I can't resist imagining what happens when you are sitting at home one day and somebody who is your investment adviser calls you up and says: "I think I would like to sell you a harmonized interface." But that's merely a digression. As a result of the adoption of harmonized interfaces and other good things, market participants will generally avoid having to comply with two different sets of requirements. That is a good public policy objective in the area of securities regulation. The amendments also clarify the process for revoking a cease-trading order and make some further technical changes to the new Securities Act.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the Personal Information Protection Act, which came into effect on January 1, 2004, sets out ground rules for how B.C. businesses and not-for-profit organizations may collect, use and disclose personal information. The proposed amendments in this bill repair some erroneous or ambiguous wording brought to government's attention after the act was passed in 2003, and these amendments will allow the information and privacy commissioner to share information with his federal and provincial counterparts, to help coordinate privacy investigations that may cross jurisdictional boundaries.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 74, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 63; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Plant: There are several amendments in the hands of the Chair — to section 1, to section 3 and to section 4. The amendments are, broadly speaking, all intended to give clearer effect to the intention of the legislation. They all arise because after introduction of the legislation, it was available for examination by, among other things, a wider group of trust lawyers and trust administrators.

I wanted to say, first of all, that I appreciate the interest that has been shown in this and the help that's been offered. I want to express the hope that we've addressed the issues that have been raised. I think that for simplification I'll deal with each of the three amendments proposed in section 1 one at a time.

Hon. G. Plant: I want to move three amendments, one at a time, on section 3.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 63, Charitable Purposes Preservation Act, reported complete with amendments.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 72; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: We were debating yesterday. I was just looking back at Hansard to see where we'd left off around some of the issues in this section of the bill. I just want to go back and canvass with the Attorney General on the question around "other lawful authority." He did name yesterday in the debate a couple of examples where other lawful authority would fit into that category, but I'm wondering whether or not, for example, a Supreme Court ruling would fit into that category.

Hon. G. Plant: I don't know what the member means by a Supreme Court ruling in this context.

J. Kwan: What I mean by that would be, for example, a Supreme Court of Canada decision around an authority for people to participate in certain activities in a quasi-public private area. Would that constitute, under this section of the act — 4.1, "Defences to trespass," under sub (b) — other lawful authority?

Hon. G. Plant: Court decisions, particularly appellate court decisions, have what might be described as a specific effect and a general effect. The specific effect is the effect of the court ruling in the dispute that gave rise to the ruling. The effect in that case is that the court ruling results in an order which has an effect on the parties to the dispute and might conceivably amount to an express direction to one party to a dispute to permit somebody else to do something, in which case it would seem to me self-evident that the ruling would have the effect that it is intended to.

Appellate courts also, though, make legal pronouncements in cases where they are endeavouring to provide new clarity or a new direction or to reshape policy in a particular area of the law. They do so in a way that has general application. However, the application of those principles or rules to particular cases will depend on the facts of the particular case.

It's not possible to give a better answer, I don't think, to the member's question than that. The Supreme Court of Canada has the authority to make judgments in cases brought before it. Its judgments have the force of law and must, I think, be respected to that extent, but whether or not they extend to particular circumstances and particular cases will turn on the circumstances in those cases.

J. Kwan: Let me then ask this question. Then I may bring up the particular court decision relating to my

question. Maybe that's not necessary. Let me just ask the Attorney General this question. Could leafleting by individuals be deemed to be a prohibited activity under this section of the act?

Hon. G. Plant: The act uses the term "activity" deliberately because we're trying to be fairly open-ended in using a term that will encompass a wide range of things, all of which might be called activities. I think it's conceivable that in some circumstances and for some purposes, someone who is leafleting might be doing an activity that might fall within the scope of this act, assuming, of course, the other requirements of the act were followed and that the act was interpreted and applied in a way that complied with the constitutional law of Canada — which, of course, is superior to this statute.

J. Kwan: Let me just assure the Attorney General that I'm not trying to be sneaky in some cross-examining way with these questions to the minister. All I'm trying to establish is to get clarity with respect to the act and an issue that was just brought to my attention, in fact, less than an hour ago by some members of the public who were concerned after hearing yesterday's debate. It has brought to light another area I want to canvass with the minister around this issue. I haven't got the expertise that the Attorney General might think I have in terms of these questions, with respect to sneakiness.

Leafleting could be deemed to be a prohibited activity under this act. Supreme Court decisions may or may not apply, with respect to it being a defence to trespassing, as a defence to this act.

Let me ask this question of the minister, and let me then just put on record the issues here. Would the Labour Relations Board decisions be deemed to be a lawful authority under this act?

J. Kwan: When the Attorney General says, "They could," does it also mean that they could also not be deemed to be other lawful authority under this act?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I don't know what Labour Relations Board decision we're talking about, and I don't know what it purports to authorize. It may have nothing to do with being on property. That's why I'm careful in the answer.

J. Kwan: I'm seeking clarity from the Attorney General with respect to the application of this act. I wasn't sure if I would actually bring forward the judgment itself but rather talk about the issue in a broader context. Given the answers I have received from the Attorney General, it isn't clear to me whether or not information leafleting would be deemed to be an offence under this act arising from a Supreme Court of Canada decision.

For the Attorney's information, let me put the backgrounder — some of the backgrounder, for it is a 26-page court decision…. I do not wish to read the entire court decision on the record. But let me just read portions of it for the Attorney General's information, and then I would seek his response as to whether or not this court decision, for example, would override the provisions under this act in terms of it being deemed to potentially be an offence.

This is a court decision dated February 15, 1999. It is a case involving the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518, UFCW v. K Mart Canada Ltd. There are also a number of other interveners associated with the case, but I won't put all of that on the record for the time being.

J. Kwan: Let me just put the information to the minister about that. First, by way of backgrounder here, let me put this on the record. I'm quoting directly from the court decision here. In terms of backgrounder, here is the information.

That's the gist of the case relating to this. There is a lot more associated with it, but I'm going to skip over to the conclusion — if you will — and remedy, according to the case, again quoting from the document under paragraph 79, regarding conclusion and remedy.

It goes on to cite other information which I won't put on the record. I think that will suffice in terms of putting the context of the question to the Attorney General — particularly in relation to the court decision itself and whether or not this particular court decision, for example, would override this bill or can be constituted as other lawful authority under section 4.1 as a defence.

Hon. G. Plant: Does the member know whether the secondary or the other picketing in the case she is referring to took place on private property or on a city street?

J. Kwan: To my understanding…. I don't have the legal description, per se, on whether or not it is strictly private property versus public property, but it is my understanding that the leafleting took place in what would be deemed to be a mall complex. As people entered the store, leafleting was done. In fact, I do have here the specific site locations, which would take me a minute to find.

Here it is, actually. It is in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the court decision. Here is what is reported in it:

It references the page, page 1091: "…handed out two types of leaflets describing the respondent's alleged unfair practices and urging customers to shop elsewhere. The leaflets made clear that the appellant was seeking only a customer boycott of the respondent's stores."

Then it goes on to describe the leaflet, but I think that provides some information with respect to where they were picketing.

Then in paragraph 4 it goes on to say: "The distribution of leaflets did not interfere with employees at the secondary sites, nor was there any indication that it interfered with the delivery of supplies. The activity was carried out peacefully, and it did not impede public access to the stores. Neither was there any evidence of verbal or physical intimidation. The evidence did indicate that as a result of the distribution of leaflets, some customers appeared confused and a small number appeared to turn away."

That's the information I can provide. In a similar context, in those kinds of situations oftentimes even though you're not right at the door or inside the premise or the structure of the private property — if you are just outside in the surrounding area — you may well be on private property. If you're even standing in the parking lot of a mall complex, for example, security folks have in the past actually asked people to leave and so on. So that would be deemed to be, as I say, quasi-private public space.

Hon. G. Plant: I don't know what the member means when she talks about a quasi-public private space. It's not a term that I am familiar with.

From what the member read, it sounds to me like it was a pretty sure thing that the people doing the secondary picketing were standing on a public street. I'm pretty sure that if they were standing inside the store or on the property that belonged to some shopping mall owner, that issue would somehow have been referred to directly without necessarily displacing all of the other discussion.

What the member has read to me — and I have to say I don't know this case; I probably should, but I don't — sounds to me like a case where the issue is the extent to which the legislative regime then in force in British Columbia, which dealt with the right to picket, did or did not violate the Charter guarantees of freedom of expression. In other words, it is a labour law case, and it is a freedom-of-expression case. It's not a trespass case. I don't want to have a labour law debate. I mean, if we have to go there to some extent, I expect we will end up going there.

During the course of the member's recitation of the facts in the case, I have had occasion to pull out a copy of the Labour Relations Code, which is available to me

here in the chamber. It is the 1996 version of the code. I don't know how up to date the binder is that is sitting here in the chamber. I know there have been some changes to the Labour Relations Code since 1996, but I don't know that there have been any changes to section 66.

Section 66 of the act says that no action or proceeding may be brought for what is described as petty trespass to land to which a member of the public ordinarily has access, arising out of strikes, lockouts or picketing permitted under this code, or attempts to persuade employees to join a trade union made at or near but outside entrances and exits to an employer's workplace.

The labour relations universe has some rules about property rights. It has some rules about picketing. It has some rules, as the member has pointed out, about the extent to which our fundamental right of freedom of expression relates to picketing. Those are all important issues. But I think they are a fairly long way afield from what we are looking at, which is a section of the Trespass Amendment Act, 2004 that says you can't be convicted of the offence of trespass if you are on the property or doing something on the property with lawful authority to do so.

As I've said, there may be circumstances where an order of the court or where a principle of law relating to a specific area of law — for example, labour law and picketing rights — may well actually amount to lawful authority. That's why this defence is there, and that's why this defence is there in general terms. Like all general terms in the law, it will probably be tested in the courts from time to time. We'll discover the margins of it, and we'll discover the heart and the soul of it. The heart and the soul of it are pretty straightforward: if you're allowed to be on somebody's property doing the thing you are allowed to do, then you've got a defence to an action in trespass.

Let me say again, as I said in the conclusion of the debate the last time we were discussing this section, that there is nothing particularly novel in this. This is not a groundbreaking section of a bill. It's actually very straightforward. I would almost say that it is garden-variety stuff. What is new about it is that it actually hasn't been part of the statutory law of trespass in British Columbia in this way, because we've had this old clunker of a Trespass Act that we are now finally modernizing.

The issues that the member is dealing with in her examples may well have application to the circumstances where somebody finds themselves wanting to exercise what they believe are their rights to picket or to leaflet. Those rights are, for the most part, regulated by labour law. They're not regulated by this act. But the two may interrelate from time to time, and the courts will have to decide whatever cases come before them.

J. Kwan: I would expect that the two may well interrelate, which is why I'm canvassing these questions with the minister more particularly.

I just want to be clear, because the situation could actually apply to non-union situations. For example, it could apply to someone, or to individuals or groups, who might be leafleting in a mall complex or in the parking lot of a mall. That is still private property, in that it belongs to the mall complex owner. In that sense, it's not really public property.

Let me just clarify for the Attorney General that when I say quasi-private public property, I mean this. I know that there is not a legal term. That's not a legal term, but let me be clear in terms of what I mean. A shopping centre is a place, for example, where the public is generally welcome. They're welcome to go. In fact, they're encouraged to go and engage in a variety of activities and so on, but it is private property on which public gatherings could actually take place. In that sense, those kinds of premises, those kinds of properties, would be what I would call, for the purposes of this debate, quasi-private public property.

As I was saying, the situation of leafleting could apply to anybody — any individual or organization, union or non-union. A person could be in the parking lot, as I said, handing out leaflets about environmental issues. A person could be in a parking lot handing out leaflets about labour practices in relation to child labour — for example, about particular products that came from a particular place that utilized child labour — and asking people to consider boycotting using that product. It can have wide-ranging application, is what I'm trying to drive at.

There is this one incident, which I've brought to the Attorney General as information, in which leafleting was found by the Supreme Court of Canada to be a right enshrined within our constitution. Therefore, the appellant in this case, which was UFCW, would have the right to engage in that activity.

Having said that, the question really does become…. In the context that the Attorney General said yesterday, virtually anything could be deemed to be a prohibited activity, as long as the authorized person or individual deems it to be. Save and except in this act there are three things that apply that could mount to be a defence — that is, the consent of the occupier of the premise, or an authorized person or other lawful authority, or colour of right. I'm trying to establish, then, clearly, for the public's information and for the purposes of clarity, whether or not for a person to go and leaflet at these quasi-public private properties — are they committing an offence? I think people have the right to know when they go and leaflet in, let's say, a shopping mall complex.

Hon. G. Plant: To be clear, people ought not to think they can go leaflet a shopping mall. The member has some idea in her head of something she wants to call a quasi-public private — or was it public-private-quasi? — place. I don't think such a place exists. A shopping mall is private property. You can't go and leaflet a shopping mall without permission of the mall owner. You could be waving around a placard that

says, "I want to celebrate the United Nations day for the freedom of whatever," and if you get onto the private property, the mall owner could say: "No, I don't want you on my private property."

The reason why I asked the question about the facts of the case that the member referred to earlier, about whether or not a secondary picketing was in the store, off the store…. I know that the member wants to think that a shopping mall is sort of a public place. It's not. It is a place where the public routinely go, but only because they're invited there. I think mere licensees is the status of what you are when you are on a shopping mall property. You are not there because you have the right to be there; you are there because the owner of the property allows you to be there. That is not a difficult proposition of the law. It is not a new proposition of the law. It is not a subtle proposition of the law. It is a basic proposition of the law.

There are some interesting issues here, but you can't avoid the fact that private property is private property. In a case called Harrison and Carswell in 1975, the Supreme Court of Canada was dealing with picketers at — and I hope the member will listen to this — a privately owned shopping centre. They were found guilty of violating the Petty Trespasses Act of Manitoba.

Mr. Justice Dickson, as he then was, for the majority went on to talk about the fact that there are competing values here. There is the right to property; there is the right to picket; there are challenges in reconciling these things. Then he goes on to say this: "Society has long since acknowledged that a public interest is served by permitting union members to bring economic pressure to bear upon their respective employers through peaceful picketing. But the right has been exercisable in some locations and not in others. To the extent that picketing has been permitted on private property, the right hitherto has been accorded by statute. For example…." Then the justice refers to a section of what was the Labour Code of 1973 of British Columbia that provided: "No action lies in respect of picketing permitted under the act or trespass to real property to which a member of the public ordinarily has access."

I suspect that that provision is, if not at least the direct ancestor…. It may be the same provision as the one I referred to, which is now section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Code. These are matters of labour relations law.

I can tell you that when you talk about picketing, it isn't labour relations law. Or you talk about leafleting, because you want to promote some commercial cause or some political cause, because you want to exercise your right of free speech…. There is a large body of law that talks about your right to do that when you are not on somebody else's front yard. When you are on somebody else's front yard, the rules are different.

The member says we're talking about trying to make things clear for the public. I think we better try to make them clear. That starts with getting our heads around the fact that a shopping mall is actually somebody's private property. It's not a piece of public property, at least not in the sense that I think we should be using the term for the purposes of this debate.

J. Kwan: Is the Attorney General then saying that where matters relate to labour relations — and such is the case which I cited — then the labour relations decision or, in this instance, the Supreme Court decision may well be considered as other lawful authority that would override the offence in this act?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, everything depends on the facts of the case, but I've already answered the question. Yes, there are circumstances where that would be exactly the case — where an order of the court may well constitute lawful authority to do something within the meaning of what would become section 4.1 of the Trespass Act.

J. Kwan: All right. So the Attorney General says: "Okay, in some cases it may be and in some cases it may not." Setting aside those individuals who may not be engaged in labour relations issues — and therefore that set of laws would not apply — those individuals, with certainty, as I'm gathering from the Attorney General, would be committing an offence if they chose to leaflet in a mall complex — or on any other private property, for that matter. If they are on public property, then that's another discussion, and therefore, they are not in violation of this act. I see the Attorney General shaking his head. Let him explain then. Please correct me on the record in terms of where I went wrong with that interpretation of the Attorney General's answer.

Hon. G. Plant: The way the member put it created a problem, because in fact, the owner of the property might permit leafleting. What is relevant here is what the owner chooses to allow on his property. If the owner says, "I don't want you leafleting," then that amounts to notice that an activity is not permitted, is prohibited, and that would trigger the requirements of the offence and perhaps give rise to arguments about whether or not the person doing the activity was actually there on the basis of some other lawful authority or colour of right or, in fact, had the consent of the occupier to do what he or she was doing.

J. Kwan: I jumped ahead of myself in making the assumption that…. I was talking about it in the context where the owner would not consent. Fair enough. Let me rephrase what I said. If a person, when they're leafleting on private property where labour relations matters are not an issue and the body of law that applies to labour relations matters does not apply…. If the authorized person deems that person's activity is unwelcome and asks that person to stop or leave the complex and the person refuses, then the person is committing an offence under this act. I think we're clear on that.

However, it remains, I suppose, for court decisions in the future to determine what exactly the body of law

that applies to labour relations matters would override in this act — or would constitute a defence for trespass under section 4.1 of this act. That's my understanding of what the Attorney General said so far.

Let me go one step further. If the Attorney General had the opportunity to review this particular case that I referenced — which I'm happy to table and give a copy for the minister's information — I would actually like an opinion from the minister about whether or not this Supreme Court of Canada decision would actually constitute other lawful authority with respect to this act relating to leafleting matters. I'd like the minister to respond to that request, please.

Hon. G. Plant: First of all, I know that for the purposes of debate, sometimes you have to restate things in words that we're comfortable with, but really, we are debating some statutory language. I just want, at this point, to remind the members of the particular language that we're talking about, because we haven't been talking so much about presence on land. We've been talking about activities for the last some minutes.

Section 4(1)(c) is the heart of the activity provisions here. It says that one commits an offence if one "engages in activity on or in premises after the person has had notice from an occupier of the premises or an authorized person that the activity is prohibited." Those are the words. In simple terms, I think, it is that the occupier or the authorized person says, "Don't do that," or there is a notice posted, according to the requirements of the act, that says, "Don't do that," in a form that meets the requirements of the act.

What happens when you refuse to comply with that notice? That gives rise to problems. It is only those people who carry on doing something on land that the owner or the occupier has said, "Don't do," who are at risk here, I think, Mr. Chair.

The member would like me to offer a legal opinion about the interrelationship of freedom of expression, the right to picket, the interpretation of the British Columbia Labour Relations Code in relation to picketing rights and the potential application of those provisions to trespass legislation. I could not possibly do that without a whole bunch of pretty detailed facts. The moment I got close enough to doing that, I'm afraid the member would hear from me what members of the public hear from me on a regular basis, which is that, by law, I have one client. The client is Her Majesty. I give advice only to Her Majesty.

I don't give advice to members of the opposition or members of the public about matters of law. I do the best I can on the floor of the House to try to explain what I think the significance of legislation is, but the question the member raises is at a level of complexity that I really don't think I could even begin to provide a helpful answer to here on the floor of the House.

J. Kwan: Then let me ask this general question to the minister. What legal advice, if any, did he receive regarding this piece of legislation, particularly on issues around constitutionality?

Hon. G. Plant: My view is that this bill is within the constitutional authority of the province of British Columbia and that it does not violate any constitutional rules, principles or requirements that would limit the exercise of provincial legislative authority, including, for example, the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is my view of this legislation.

J. Kwan: Did the minister receive written legal advice or a legal opinion from his ministry about this?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't want to be difficult about this, but the receipt of a draft bill in my hands represents the provision of legal advice to me and to government about how best to achieve the public policy objectives of the government in respect of modernizing trespass legislation. By the very fact that I'm standing here, we're talking about getting legal advice. That's about as far as I am ever willing to go in terms of talking on the floor of this House about the legal advice that I get to do my job.

J. Kwan: I must say that the Attorney General's answer, I'm afraid, is not helpful with respect to the question that I put to him around legal opinion and legal advice that he might have received from his ministry around this piece of legislation. By simply saying, "Well, I'm standing here putting forward a piece of legislation and debating it, therefore, that's as far as I would go to talk about how much legal advice I've received," and the level of comfort that he feels about this piece of legislation….

The public has the right to know. I believe the public has the right to know what due diligence this minister has done with respect to this piece of legislation — particularly on issues around potential violation of our Charter rights, for example — and whether or not he sought legal advice around it and whether or not he has a written legal opinion around this legislation from his ministry.

I know that the Attorney General is a lawyer. I know he fancies himself to know the law, and he may well know the law, in his own opinion. I also know, though, that ministers from time to time — the Attorney General notwithstanding — seek legal advice and legal opinion from their ministry about particular information and about particular bills. I'm asking specifically, in relation to this bill: what legal advice or legal opinion did the minister receive? Did he actually ask that specific question for a legal opinion on the constitutionality of this bill?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, Mr. Chair, I want to repeat something that I said the last time we were debating this legislation, for the benefit of those who may be following it. You can take a small, little trowel, and you

can try and build a monstrous mountain with it. We could talk about the constitution. The constitution's important, but actually, pretty well every province in Canada has trespass legislation. Ours was a little bit out of date. We've brought it up to date.

The principles in this legislation are, frankly, not that different from the principles of the common law around trespass. In fact, the principles of this legislation before us are not that different from the principles of the former act. It is their application that has been expanded and clarified. It's not actually an earth-shattering move in a strange direction in the area of trespass. It's about as old a part of the common law as you can have.

There is no doubt that at the margins of trespass principles, trespass principles will from time to time run into conflict with other principles, and those may include constitutional principles around freedom of expression. There's also no doubt in my mind that someone who is the owner of private property should have the right to say: "This is my property. You're doing something on it that I don't want you to do. Please leave."

Our legal system values private property to the extent that we respect the right of the owner to say to somebody on their property, "Leave," and we are willing to actually back that up with legal principles. In some circumstances, if the behaviour on the property reaches a level of offensiveness that engages the criminal law, then we may actually be in the area of the criminal law. In other circumstances, it may be a private dispute that should be resolved by some other means, but there is definitely, in my view, a role for the province to put in place a statutory framework that ensures that property owners have access to a relatively expedient means of protecting their property interests.

I have to say that as a government we actually respect the constitution in all the legislation that we bring into this chamber, and we work hard as a government to get advice from inside government and maybe, from time to time, outside government when we need to, to make sure that we have thought about the constitutional implications of what we're doing. We did that here. We do that all the time. There's nothing particularly important or novel about that.

Routinely, I do not disclose the details of the legal advice I receive, because I actually believe that solicitor-client privilege is a very important principle in our legal system. It protects the right of a client to get legal advice and to get it freely and in an atmosphere where the discussion is open, without worry about what might happen and without worry that someone else will be allowed to pry into that, because sometimes getting legal advice is a pretty important thing. It's important for citizens, but it's important for organizations, corporations. It's important for governments. I think that's an important principle.

Now, the member stands up — and I've heard her do it before: "Tell me what day you got what opinion or what opinions you got." You know, fine. She can go do that. When she was a member of government, she never disclosed her legal opinions. I sat here for five years. The former government never put legal opinions on the table. They never disclosed the legal advice. It's only now that she's in opposition that she's forgotten: "Oh, yeah, there was this principle of solicitor-client privilege that I relied on every day when I was a cabinet minister and that I no longer care about." I mean, I get that. You know, accountability is important, but I'm not going to disclose the details of what advice government sought or obtained in the preparation of this legislation, and I've already expressed my opinion on the question of whether or not it is, in fact, within the authority of the government to bring it forward and to enact it.

The Chair: Just to remind the member, we're beginning to stray from the substance of this bill. I just remind her to confine her questions to section 2 of this bill.

J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair. That's exactly what I am doing in terms of the substance of the bill. I'm trying to establish whether or not the bill, when challenged and if challenged, would actually stand up in the courts; whether or not the government has done its due diligence in addressing the issue of infringement of our constitutional rights; and what due diligence the government has done with respect to that — and to provide that information to the public. Of course, the Attorney General says: "Well, I can't tell you that. I can't tell you any of that information, because that's private information, and it's confidential information in terms of privileged information between a client and its solicitor." That's the Attorney General's response.

But I have to say, there are concerns with respect to this bill, because it is different powers that I am comfortable with in terms of the legislation. I did ask, for example, for the Attorney General to define for me what activities are to be prohibited, for example. The Attorney General was not able to do that. I did ask the Attorney General to for me in terms of describing more clearly issues around premises under the definitions section. The Attorney General was not able to do that either.

There is a section of this bill in this section that we're debating that assumes guilt, which, in my view, supersedes the presumption of innocence that applies to every other law. In this instance, there is a presumption of guilt prior to the matter going to the courts. Then under this section of the bill, you actually have to produce evidence under section 4.1(a) to (c) as your reason to defend yourself against the charges laid against you.

These are fundamental issues. Yesterday I already canvassed, and do not wish to go back to canvass, the potential abuse of powers that could be exercised under this bill on the issue around discrimination on a

variety of fronts, whether it be a gender or ethnic basis and so on and so forth. Today, as I said, at around 5 or 5:30 someone actually phoned me — this came to light with the debate yesterday — and they wondered whether or not various activities would be deemed to be in violation of the act and whether or not the Labour Relations Code and this set of laws that apply to labour relations issues would constitute other lawful authority. To the extent to which the questions were put to the Attorney General with a specific case on that, he rose in this House and said: "Well, sorry. I can't answer that either. It may or may not."

I would say there's a whole lot of uncertainty around what exactly this bill does mean. Then we also heard from the Attorney General, who just said: "Look, I don't know what all the fuss is about." Yesterday he was railing on about…. To quote him specifically, he actually said: "The emotional energy that was coming from the opposition around this bill…." He said: "There's nothing really new here, and I don't know why people are just railing on and on about it."

Well, these are important questions that need to be asked — and, I think, answers to be gotten. But we also heard from the same song sheet before from the government, when they brought forward other pieces of legislation. They said: "It's exactly the same as what the previous legislation used to do. Don't worry about it." Only then, of course, we find out that it is completely different, Mr. Chair. If it is the case that we already have existing laws that deal with these issues, then you've got to ask the question: why do we have the law that is before us now?

I'm trying to grapple with the information that's before us and trying to get clarity on this bill with respect to exactly what it means. Let me just say this. The opposition is opposed to section 4 of this bill for all the reasons that I identified yesterday and today. It is vague; it is unclear. I think that it's borderline…. I think, actually, it will be challenged in the courts. I think that it has full potential for abuse of power, and particularly on the issue around discrimination — discrimination for our basic fundamental human rights in terms of that.

I am, for one, not comfortable with a piece of legislation that does not answer some of these basic questions. I think that people should know what these prohibited activities are. I think that there should be a definition, for example, related to that. I think that people should know what other lawful authority is. I think that people should understand what that means when they can use that to mount that as a defence.

I am particularly troubled with the notion that you're presumed to be guilty, contrary to the notion of the presumption of innocence, under this act. These are some of the reasons why we, the opposition, will not be supporting this section of the bill.

J. Kwan: Section 3. This section deals with methods of giving or posting notice.

Does this section put an onus on the business owner to post a sign — for example, over their doorway, on their railcar, on a parking lot entrance, entrance to the mall — before it is unlawful for someone to, let's say, engage in an activity that would be deemed to be a prohibited activity under this act?

Hon. G. Plant: No. There are different ways of giving notice. In some contexts notice may be given orally. In some contexts it may be given in writing. In some contexts it may be given or has to be given by means of a sign, and there are some requirements about the sign.

J. Kwan: The act states, under section 5(1)…. Let me just put the section on the record. It's not that long. It says:

Under section 5(1), it suggests that a sign must be posted. Then section 5(2) suggests that notice can also be given orally or in writing. I'm just wondering: which is it? Is it the case that you could actually do either? Can you actually not have a sign and just say: "I don't want you engaged in these activities. Get out or stop"? Which is it?

Hon. G. Plant: Let's start by pointing out that subsection (1) of section 5 deals with enclosed land. Subsection (2) deals with the circumstances that are described in sections 4(1)(b) and (c).

J. Kwan: Then tell me. In the case where oral instruction is given…. Let's say, for example, that a per-

son had been given the authority to engage in a particular activity in a private property. Then later on another authorized person comes along and says, "You must stop, or you must leave," but the person's first authority was given to them orally and not in writing. In that case, there is an issue here.

How would one be able to bring forward the oral authority that had already been given to them that authorized them to engage in these activities that later on may be subject to dispute? If oral communication is allowed as a means of notice for someone to disengage in their activity, then likewise, one would assume that oral authority would also be allowed in defending their action. Am I right in understanding that?

Hon. G. Plant: I was having a discussion here, because I was having a hard time understanding the member's question.

Clearly, it's possible that you could come on land thinking you had authority. Maybe you have authority. Then when you're on land, someone in a position of authority on the land comes and says: "No, you're not allowed to do that here." You might say: "No. Actually, I've got a letter here from the landlord that says I'm allowed to do something." It may be that there's going to be a dispute about that in particular cases. That's something that would happen now, perhaps, under common law, and it could happen in other circumstances.

What we're trying to do here is provide a fairly flexible framework for allowing notice to be given that allows the owner, the occupier or some other lawfully authorized person on behalf of the owner or occupier to say to somebody, "No, please don't do that," in a fairly informal way or to provide a letter. In some cases there would be a sign posted. Those are all ways of communicating what's prohibited.

There certainly is the potential that in some cases there may be a difference of understanding about what the facts were. That happens in all sorts of contexts, and it may happen here. I think the framework is the right framework in terms of giving property owners a variety of ways to make their views known and saying to the person who is on the property: "If you're asked to leave or asked to stop doing something, you should stop doing it."

J. Kwan: On the question around signage, does the minister intend to come up with some sort of official provincial sign or graphic that will guide the private property owner in terms of what they could or could not use? Will there be some sort of regulation drawn up with respect to signage pertaining to this act?

J. Kwan: So the only stipulations that would apply in the signage area would be that the sign must be posted so that in daylight and under normal weather conditions, from the approach to each ordinary point of access to enclosed land, it is clearly visible; that if a sign contains writing, the writing is clearly legible; and that if a sign uses graphic representation, the graphic representation is clearly visible.

What about the case where an issue arose for an individual where there was no signage but, however, the authorized person deemed that that person was violating their rights and therefore was committing an offence under this act? Is it a defence for the individual who's been charged with the offence to say that there was no signage?

Hon. G. Plant: I wish it weren't…. It actually is pretty simple. The act allows owners to put up signs that say: "Don't do this," or "Don't come on my land," or "You can't come on my land to hunt," or "You can't come on my property to smoke," or "You can't smoke in this part of the mall," or "You can't ride skateboards over here." That's certainly one way in which an owner of property could make their views known and impose a requirement that says: "Don't do this." That would trigger the act if somebody went on the land and did the activity that the sign prohibited.

Now, it may be that there's no sign on property, and somebody goes on to somebody else's private property and starts skateboarding. Maybe it's a mall, and the mall manager or the security guard comes up and says: "No, we have a rule that we don't allow skateboarding on this mall." The skateboarder says: "I didn't see a sign." I think the answer at that point is: so what?

The framework is that if the person with responsibility for the property says, "No, we don't allow skateboarding," then that's enough. You've got to stop skateboarding. You don't get to say: "Ah, but you don't have a sign." A sign is just one of the ways in which the property owner can impose limits, give notice of limits, on the use of his or her property.

J. Kwan: Then what's the purpose of the language in the bill that says "signs must be posted so that," etc.? I mean, the property owner could post signs or not. Why use the language "must"? What's the purpose of that?

Hon. G. Plant: The language the member is referring to there is the language that applies to enclosed land.

J. Kwan: Yes, and my question is in the area of enclosed land. If, in an enclosed land situation, someone is on the property somewhere and there is no signage, an altercation results, charges are laid and so on…. The minister just said that it is not a defence for someone to say: "Well, I didn't see a sign." I fail to see what's the purpose of actually saying that you must put up a sign when whether or not you have a sign is, quite frankly, not relevant, because you can always default to say: "Well, okay, there was no sign, but I'm telling you right now to get off the land." Why prescribe that you must post a sign?

Hon. G. Plant: Remember that we're here debating an amending act. The act is intended to amend the ex-

isting Trespass Act. The existing Trespass Act has a definition for what's called enclosed land. There are three parts to the definition of enclosed land. The first part of the definition is land that is "surrounded by a lawful fence defined by or under this Act." The second part is land that is "surrounded by a lawful fence and a natural boundary or by a natural boundary alone." And the third part is land that is "posted with signs prohibiting trespass in accordance with section 5." The old framework — the framework that we are now amending and, I believe, improving — was a framework that relied pretty heavily on the requirement for enclosed land.

In this amending legislation, we're proposing that section 5(1) read: "For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of 'enclosed land'…." This is to say, lands that are posted with signs prohibiting trespass in accordance with section 5. It will become 5(1). There are some requirements about the signs. This deals with the requirements for a sign if it is a situation where you are relying upon the third branch of the definition of enclosed land.

The relevance of enclosed land becomes clearer if you look at what will become section 4 of the act — what is section 2 of the bill. In section 4.1(a), you commit an offence if you enter premises that are enclosed land — period. Really, the concept there is that you will be on land that is surrounded by a fence that meets the statutory definition, or you'll be on land — somebody else's land, obviously — that is surrounded by a fence and a natural boundary or by natural boundary, or you'll be on land that has been posted with a sign that prohibits trespass.

If you go on somebody else's property that's posted with a sign that says trespass is not allowed, then you've committed an offence — unless, of course, you're there with the permission, the lawful authority and the consent of the owner. That's actually, I think, pretty basic trespass law. You can't be on somebody else's land without their permission.

J. Kwan: Section 5 repeals sections 7 to 9 of the Trespass Act regarding penalties and power to demand name and address of trespasser. Then section 5 gives an owner the power to demand the name and address of, for the purposes of debate, a homeless person — which, of course, begs the question of what use this would be for someone with no fixed address. Why is this power given, and what purpose does it serve?

Hon. G. Plant: Section 8 of the Trespass Act as it now exists reads as follows: "The owner, lessee or occupier of land on which a trespass has been committed, or a person authorized by the owner, lessee or occupier in that behalf, may demand the name and address of any person trespassing or who has trespassed on the land." Really, this carries forward in more modern context the existing law.

J. Kwan: This section of the act — does it square with privacy laws? Has the minister checked with experts in his ministry — expert advice within his ministry — on issues around potential violation of privacy laws?

Hon. G. Plant: We're fairly sure here that the privacy legislation has been amended so that the provision of personal contact information no longer engages privacy protections.

J. Kwan: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I didn't hear the minister's answer. No longer which?

Hon. G. Plant: I think I probably said no longer engages privacy protection.

J. Kwan: Do business owners have the legal authority to demand this information in other situations, or is it just under this act that they have the authority to demand this information?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't understand the relevance of the question. I don't know what other situations the member might be referring to. If there's an example that relates to trespass legislation, I'd certainly be prepared to hear it and see if I could provide an answer.

Hon. S. Hawkins: In the gallery is a constituent of mine, Joshua Fleming. He's a student at UVic, and he's also on the varsity golf team — a good golfer from Kelowna. I just love it. Unfortunately, his dad isn't here to join him. His mom and dad are neighbours of mine in Kelowna. David was here the other day having dinner with me. They're very nice neighbours who helped look after my place and look after me when I was ill. Would you please help me in making Joshua Fleming welcome.

J. Kwan: There isn't justice, you know. This minister of state gets all sorts of athletes that she gets to introduce in this House. Anyway, I'll let her go because I like her, and I won't grill her on that.

Getting back to the question at hand, the reason why I asked this question prior to the introduction is that I'm wondering to what extent we are actually breaking new ground here in terms of the ability of business owners who could demand information of

this nature. I'm wondering whether or not another situation or other laws that a private owner or private citizen could actually demand this kind of information from individuals….

Hon. G. Plant: Let's be clear what we're talking about. We're talking about somebody who is on somebody else's private property, and the owner says: "Who are you?" That's the issue we're talking about. As I said, the requirement we're looking at here is already there in the existing legislation in somewhat different form, but the basics of it are there. In a sense, I suppose it's relevant to point out that I think peace officers enforcing the general law have the right to say of somebody they believe may have committed an offence, "Who are you?" so they can do what they need to do. I don't think it's all that unusual in this context.

I think, for example, a business owner walking down a street, coming up to somebody they don't know and saying, "Who are you?" is in no better or worse position than any other citizen. I think if someone came up to me on the street and said, "Who are you?" I'd be entitled to say, "None of your business," if I wanted to. If I'm on somebody else's private property and the question is asked of me, then I think the circumstances are different.

J. Kwan: Is this to say, then, that if I am — I'm going to use the mall example again — in the mall on private property and a security guard comes up and says to me, "What's your name, and what's your fixed address, or what's your address?" I would have to give that information to the security person?

Hon. G. Plant: Only if the security guard has reasonable grounds to believe that you are in or on the premises or that you were on the premises in contravention of sections 4(1)(a), (b) or (c) or section 4(3).

J. Kwan: What would be reasonable grounds? What would constitute reasonable grounds to believe?

Hon. G. Plant: You're in a shopping mall, and there's a 4-by-4 sign that says no skateboarding, and there's somebody under the sign on a skateboard. The security guard comes and says: "There's a sign that says no skateboarding. You're skateboarding. Who are you? Give me your name and address."

J. Kwan: What about in a situation like this, because the language here also uses the past tense? That is to say: "On demand of an occupier of premises, or an authorized person, who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is on or in the premises, or was on or in the premises, in contravention of section 4 (1) (a), (b) or (c) or (3), the person must provide the authorized person with his correct name and address." What about in a scenario like this? The security guard comes up to me and says: "You know, I think I saw you the other day walking in the mall and whistling, and I didn't like that. I'm going to ask you to leave. Before you do that, I demand to know who you are, what your name is and what your address is." Is that reasonable grounds?

Hon. G. Plant: The circumstances that the member described did not include the satisfaction of the requirement of notice in 4(1)(b) or (c). You can't come up to somebody after they've left property and say: "Gee, I didn't like what you were doing on my land." That's not what this act is about.

This act is about what happens if you go onto somebody's property and you do something on the property that the owner of the property has said, by posting a notice, by handing out something in writing, by making it clear in some means or perhaps by providing notice orally to someone: "No, you can't do that." That's when this issue of the requirement to give a name and address arises.

Just as is the case in the existing act which we're amending here, if, for example, the security guard followed you outside the mall with your skateboard in hand and even, perhaps, followed you onto a public street but had reasonable grounds to believe that you had been on the mall premises skateboarding contrary to a notice posted on the mall, then the security guard could ask you to disclose your name and address for the purpose of pursuing a potential prosecution under the act. There would be reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed.

J. Kwan: Okay, let me rephrase my question to the minister with the example that I used earlier. Could it be the case that a security guard could come up to me and say, "I think I saw you whistling in the mall last week. I came up to you and asked you to stop doing that, and you didn't. Now I need to know — I want to know, I'm demanding to know — your name and your address," per the section of this act that allows the security guard to do so? Is that reasonable grounds for the security guard to ask for my personal information? If I refuse, am I committing an offence?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I don't know why the security guard didn't do it at the time that the whistling continued. That would have been a pretty good time to do it. If the security guard decides to wait a week or two, then I would say that starts to become a slightly riskier proposition.

J. Kwan: The point I'm trying to get at, of course, is this. I potentially could see situations where there may well be abuse of power. Someone might come up to an individual and say: "Well, I saw you last week here, and you were engaging in an activity that I had explicitly asked you to stop, and you did not. You're now back, so I'm going to demand to know who you are and what your name is." They then, perhaps, proceed with laying a charge and moving forward in going after the person who was committing an offence, whether or not it is actually the case that that same

individual was there committing the prohibited activity — as the security guard, for example, may claim.

This is what I'm trying to get at. I would say that there's great potential for abuse here. I hope, at the minimum, that the minister sees my point. It is the case, as I said last night, that I know of constituents in my riding who regularly face situations like this. They are barred from going into shopping centres or going to the theatre for no other reason, according to them and their beliefs, than that they might not fit the bill or that the security person might not like the way the person looked or other reasons. Some people in my community have said to me that they believe it may well be because they're poor and they're aboriginal.

Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Chair, I'd love to be in the chamber watching the member opposite debate the Minister of Justice about the Criminal Code of Canada, because it would sure be a long debate. A police officer comes up to some kid on the street and says: "I saw you shoplifting last week in Zellers, K Mart, wherever. Who are you?" It happens every day. Did the police officer see the kid? That's a question of fact. I can't deal with that issue here. Maybe he did; maybe he didn't.

All you can do is put in place rules that look pretty straightforward, that give effect to what I think are sound public policy principles, and the sound public policy principle here is this: if you're on my property doing something that you know you're not allowed to do, and you don't stop doing it as soon as practicable after having been told you're not allowed to do it, you're trespassing. In those circumstances, you may have committed an offence already, and I think I'm entitled to know who you are.

Whether and what, and the hypothetical if or that…. I'm sorry to say it in facetious terms, but what happens if it's four blue moons after last week's Sunday and the lunar eclipse is in the house of Cancer, and the shopping mall attendant comes up and says: "Gee, I had a dream last night that you might have been in the mall three weeks ago doing something I didn't like"? Well, that's the far end of outrageous.

Will there be potential situations where the kinds of concerns that I know the member cares about in terms of the unequal operation of the law on persons who are disadvantaged, persons of colour, which are hugely important concerns…? Will there be situations where that occurs? Gosh, I hope not. I will be the first one to be upset if that happens. Again, there is nothing startling in this law in that respect.

The member has not suddenly tripped over some new dilemma of public policy. It is a problem on every page of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is the same issue in the existing Trespass Act, which has been the law for all kinds of years and, in fact, was the law for all of the years in which the member sat as a member of government with the same concerns, I know, that she still has about these issues. We're not doing anything in this particular respect with the section that we have before us.

What we are doing is modernizing, tidying it up, bringing it into a more modern context so it doesn't say things like — whatever that phrase is in the old one — "in that behalf." This is a lovely phrase but not maybe the kind of language you would want to use in the statutes of the twenty-first century. That's all we're talking about.

Section 9 of the existing Trespass Act imposes a penalty for refusing to give name. It applies to anyone who has committed a trespass and, therefore, applies to someone who may have committed a trespass sometime before the demand is made to give a name and address.

J. Kwan: I know that the Attorney General wants to make light of the issues that I raised here in this House today relating to this. I know that the member for North Coast may even think that it's funny in terms of this debate, as he laughed outright when the Attorney General gave his facetious response to my questions.

Let me actually say this, Mr. Chair, and put it on record. Let us be clear about it. As I mentioned, I have constituents in my riding coming forward with concerns of discrimination. They alleged that they have experienced discrimination. They alleged that they have been in situations where they've been banned and barred from entering into a shopping mall, from entering into theatres — for no reason, in their belief, other than that they are aboriginal and that they looked poor. I have correspondence from individuals with that kind of concern, people who may not have experienced that directly but have observed those kinds of activities that took place in my riding.

I canvass these questions because the authority given to a person in this bill to deem that an individual is committing some sort of offence just because the authorized person can say so…. If you don't stop doing that activity, you are deemed to be committing an offence just because someone says so. Then along with it, that authorized person can demand your personal information, which we regard, in many instances, as sacred information that we want to guard. I don't walk down the street and just sort of say to people: "This is who I am, and this is my home address." I don't normally do that, as a rule.

When the Attorney General tried to make light of the issue by picking up the Criminal Code, I believe; I can't see that far…. Maybe that's what he picked up and said it's the Criminal Code. In fact, police officers and peace officers regularly do that. If I want to engage in a debate about that, he says perhaps the federal minister would be happy to engage in a debate with me.

Well, a normal citizen is unlike a peace officer or a police officer. We don't normally walk around carrying a gun with us. We don't normally go around handcuffing people if we believe they have committed an offence. We aren't normally empowered with those kinds of authorities. There is a reason why police officers and peace officers are given those kinds of authorities. There are reasons why they are given the authority to

This is beyond the kind of discussion that I think the Attorney General wants to take it down to. That's not what it is about, Mr. Chair. There is a concern that I have, because given the language of this bill, one could say: "I saw you last week, and I told you not to do this activity last week in this premise. Now you're back, and I'm now going to demand your name and address so that I can proceed with charging you with an offence." I find that problematic — I do — on the side of potential abuse here.

Maybe the Attorney General doesn't concern himself with that, but I do represent a riding where disadvantaged people are discriminated against regularly. I do want to bring forward some of these issues and issues of abuse that people face, especially in the context of this law in terms of how that abuse could be further exemplified because of the authorities given within this bill.

Hon. G. Plant: I have to say this: hypocrisy walks and talks in this Legislature, and it does so in the person of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. She says she finds it problematic. What nonsense. What unbridled hypocrisy — unbelievable hypocrisy.

Here is section 9(1) of the Trespass Act of British Columbia as it now reads. "Anyone who has committed a trespass by entering or being on enclosed land, and on demand made by or on behalf of the owner, lessee or occupier of the land refuses or omits to give his or her name and address, or gives a false name or address, commits an offence."

I sat in this chamber from 1996 to 2001 as a lowly member of the opposition, waiting day by day — desperately, enthusiastically, cringingly waiting — for the day when the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who was a member of government, a cabinet minister, would leap to her feet in joy, leap to her feet finally able to unchain her pent-up anxiety about these issues, and say to the members of this assembly gathered: "I demand that my party repeal section 9(1) of the Trespass Act because" — to use the words I heard her use a minute ago — "I find it problematic." When did she start finding it problematic? Did she start finding it problematic in 1996? I never heard her say so. Did she start finding it problematic in 1997? I never heard her say so.

She is a community activist from her community, a city council member for years and years and years. No doubt tomorrow she will come into the chamber and table speech after speech she has given in the city of Vancouver, year after year, telling people who would listen, telling anyone — standing on the street corners of this city, of Vancouver, any street corner — demanding that some government somewhere would repeal section 9(1) of the Trespass Act. "By God, it's an offence against common humanity that that provision should be here." I can just imagine her words. They would have been gripping, tearing. They would have torn my heartstrings out. Did I ever hear them? Not once. Not ever.

Now, years later, years pass, years when the member was in a position, as a member of government, to do something about it and did absolutely nothing — the square root of nothing. Now she discovers her conscience. What an amazing discovery that is — to discover your conscience when you no longer are in a position to be responsible about it. For years she was in a position where she could have done something about it. She could have said: "I simply think it is an offence against humanity for an owner of property to be able to demand of a trespasser: 'Tell me who you are. You're on my land. I want to know who you are. I want to know where you live, because you're on my land without my permission. You're a trespasser.'" That's a fundamental principle of trespass law — clearly something that she doesn't like.

But I find it remarkable that the first time I have ever heard her say that on the floor of this Legislature is tonight. I've been here eight and a half years, and I ain't never heard her say it before tonight. So I am going to suggest that she actually rethink her concerns about this provision. If she is as opposed to it as she says she is, she is hypocrisy — walking, talking, breathing, functioning, the quintessential apparition of hypocrisy. She should be choking on her hypocrisy.

I am as concerned as she is about the people who live in her community and my community that may from time to time be on the wrong end of the discriminatory use of law enforcement powers. I am the minister responsible for the Human Rights Code, which says that if you provide a service or an accommodation or a facility to members of the public, you cannot discriminate. The tragedy is, Mr. Chair, it still happens. We work hard to try to prevent it from happening.

But I think this provision, frankly, is just a bit straightforward. I am sure that the member is going to rise now and that we are going to hear the full-throated roar of her indignation as her conscience, newly created, sprouts from the infinitesimally small grains that existed until this moment, finally giving flower upon the floor of the Legislature in the fullness of their eloquence. [Applause.]

J. Kwan: You know, as the Attorney General showers insults on me, as he just did moments ago, and as the members around this House clap and cheer him on…. I want to put this on record — the member for Coquitlam–Maillardville; the member for Vancouver-Fraserview; the member for North Coast; the member for Langley; the member for Vancouver-Kingsway — who actually put his hand up so I wouldn't miss putting him on record; the member for Cariboo South; the member from Penticton-Okanagan. Let me just make sure that I actually have all of these members on record here: the Minister of State for Forestry Operations, the member for Cariboo North, and of course the Minister of Agriculture. Let me put that on record. They cheer the minister on as he showers insults upon me. Some

It is this government that brought forward a piece of legislation that changed the premise of the Trespass Act as it was. It is this government that brought forward a piece of legislation that allows for an individual to define what a prohibited activity would be without saying what a prohibited activity would be. It is this government that does not clearly lay out what a trespass area would be under the definition of premises in this act.

I raised the issues of potential abuse, but to no avail. In fact, members laughed at those questions. I raised the questions around potential abuse. This section of the act goes beyond what the existing Trespass Act says. The minister knows it. You know what? Those backbench MLAs in this chamber should know it as well. Of course, they don't, because they can't be bothered to read the legislation, as they have demonstrated already, time and time again. They simply blindly shut their eyes and close their ears and vote whatever the government tells them to do. They have done so already with the HEU workers on legislation prior to that.

The minister wants to talk about hypocrisy. Let's talk about hypocrisy. It is this government that has expanded gaming, that actually passed a motion of non-confidence of the former Minister of Women's Equality that this Attorney General participated in and many of the Liberal MLAs participated in, including the former Minister…

J. Kwan: …of Women's Services. They did nothing when this government expanded gaming.

The Chair: Member, please take your seat. Everyone has had an opportunity to vent here, but let's get back to the bill. We're dealing with section 5 of Bill 72. Let's get back to the debate.

J. Kwan: The issue at hand, of course, is that there are flaws with this bill — this bill that this government introduced, not the previous government. The previous government never extended its hand into this area of law to allow for just anybody, under this act, to be authorized to determine that you're engaged in a prohibited activity. The previous government never did that.

For the Attorney General and all the sheepish MLAs to clap and cheer him on, they better think again. They better actually look and see what they're doing. Their reckoning is, in fact, coming. You know what? British Columbians will actually think deep and hard about what this government is doing and what it has done and its record over the last three and a half years.

It's a bit much to take, coming from an Attorney General who eliminated the Human Rights Commission, who was responsible for cutting legal aid. For this minister to say, "Oh, but I care deeply about human rights. I care deeply about people's rights and making sure that they actually have the access to legal representation…." Give me a break. You want to talk about hypocrisy? Look in the mirror before you actually talk about it.

The question that I have for the minister on section 8 does raise the issue of the past tense in terms of its application here.

J. Kwan: Anyway, section 5 — you're right. It repeals sections 7 to 9. Of course, it's section 8 that we're inserting into the act itself as an amendment. It does raise the issue around someone being on a premise and that someone who has the authority might deem someone to be committing an offence.

It is a concern to me in terms of the potential abuse of powers. Maybe nobody else shares that. I know I represent a riding that is the poorest neighbourhood in all of Canada, and according to the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard, it's the worst neighbourhood in Canada. I refute that, and I take that, too, as an insult. In this act, there is potential for abuse, and I do have concerns about it.

Whether or not the minister wants to admit it…. I suppose there's nothing I can do about that. I can't make him acknowledge that. All I can do as a legislator in this House is raise the issues — highlight them, raise the questions — and hope that the government will see the point. But if they refuse to do so, there is nothing I can do about it. I am only one vote. Along with my colleague, we only have two votes in opposition to this government in this House. That's how laws are made with this Legislature, and that's how they are made with this government. They just ram through legislation. That's how they act, actually. In fact, that's what they do.

I want to ask this question to the minister. Could the Attorney General confirm that this bill gives the same authority if the owner or manager, for example — the authorized person or persons — merely thinks that a person had committed an offence previously? Would they be able to demand that personal information from them?

Hon. G. Plant: As I previously pointed out, the section is fairly clear. It imposes a requirement of reasonable grounds for a belief that a person is on or in the premises or was on or in the premises in contravention of the requirements of the act. So a subjective belief is not enough. The belief must meet the requirement or the test of reasonable grounds.

J. Kwan: Short of having a sign in front of you that says you are not allowed to skateboard, for example, or

signage that says you are not allowed to engage in a particular prohibited activity and you are actually doing it at the time…. Short of those kinds of reasonable grounds, what other kinds of reasonable grounds can one expect could be utilized under this act?

Hon. G. Plant: The member is talking about issues of proof and evidence. The section is very clear: "On the demand of an occupier of premises, or an authorized person, who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is on or in the premises, or was on or in the premises, in contravention of section 4 (1) (a), (b) or (c) or (3), the person must provide the occupier or authorized person with his or her correct name and address."

The facts of a particular situation will be there, and if the facts disclose that the occupier or authorized person had reasonable grounds to believe that the things had occurred, then the requirement to provide a name and address is triggered.

J. Kwan: Let me sum up with this section of the bill. As I mentioned in my debate earlier, there are issues I have with this section of the bill. I have highlighted them to the minister. He makes light of them. He does not acknowledge these concerns. He does not acknowledge the potential abuse that's embedded in this legislation that might be utilized against individuals, particularly individuals who are marginalized in our communities.

I'm particularly concerned that there is language here that ties into section 4 in terms of the new definition and the new section that deals with the offence around prohibited activities. With these concerns collectively that I have raised in this House, I will not be supporting this section of the bill.

J. Kwan: Section 6 changes the definition of a peace officer. Could the Attorney General please outline who, under this legislation, would be considered a peace officer?

Hon. G. Plant: The definition in this bill refers to section 29, subparagraph (c) of the Interpretation Act, and that means "a police officer, police constable, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace."

J. Kwan: Why is the need for warrants eliminated in this section of the bill?

Under section 6(a)(2), "a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person found on or in premises if the peace officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that the person is committing an offence under section 4 in relation to the premises."

Hon. G. Plant: The Trespass Act of British Columbia as it now reads includes provision in section 10(2) that allows a peace officer to arrest without warrant, and this carries that forward.

J. Kwan: I have more questions to the minister relating to this bill around sections 7, 9 and 10.

But noting the time, Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.


	YEAS — 46

Falcon	Coell	Chong
Brice	Hansen	Bell
Barisoff	van Dongen	Bray
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Murray
Plant	Harris	Christensen
Penner	Cobb	Jarvis
Hogg	Nuraney	de Jong
R. Stewart	MacPhail	Kwan
Chutter	Long	Johnston
Bennett	Belsey	Krueger
J. Reid	Stephens	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Lekstrom
MacKay	Halsey-Brandt	K. Stewart
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
	Manhas

	NAYS — 1

	Nettleton


	YEAS — 51

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Chong	Brice	Hansen
Bell	Santori	Barisoff
van Dongen	Bray	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Murray	Campbell
de Jong	Harris	Christensen
Abbott	Neufeld	Penner
Cobb	Jarvis	Hogg
Nuraney	Nebbeling	R. Stewart
Hunter	MacPhail	Kwan
Chutter	Bennett	Belsey
Krueger	J. Reid	Stephens
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Lekstrom	MacKay	Halsey-Brandt
K. Stewart	Whittred	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas

	NAYS — 1

	Nettleton


	YEAS — 22

Coell	van Dongen	Wilson
Masi	Thorpe	Plant
Harris	Coleman	Penner
Cobb	Hogg	Nuraney
Nebbeling	R. Stewart	Chutter
Johnston	Belsey	Stephens
Nijjar	Bhullar	Lekstrom
	Manhas

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan